A cavalry of jurors

Trump’s conviction on all 34 counts in the Manhattan election fraud case was just the judicial show of force a Trump-weary country needs.

The Resistant Grandmother

Either on the silver screen, TV, or in our own imaginations, we’ve seen it.  The exhausted settlers are held hostage by bad guys, tearfully awaiting their own annihilation.  The settlers’ only hope: a U.S. army of horse soldiers to save them.  But having waited for so long, the fearful families are losing faith their champions will arrive in time.

Then, it happens…the sound of bugles, galloping horses, strong, loud voices.
The cavalry has arrived!

In a New York minute
The 21st century version of this Wild West trope has transmogrified from a colorful, 19th century mounted Army force into seven good men and five women true in New York City in 2024.  

Until these jurors proved otherwise, “Trump always gets away with everything,” had emerged as an exhausted country’s go-to mantra.  For good reason.  After Trump skated from two impeachments thanks to Republicans in the U.S. Senate, he faced a phalanx of criminal charges federally and locally for which, so far, only New York has produced any results.  

Grand juries teed up indictments for Trump’s involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection and for stealing and suborning national secrets. State charges came up in Georgia for Trump’s strong-arming that state’s Secretary of State to find “11,780 votes, or one more than we have” to steal the Peach State’s 16 electoral votes from Biden, and in New York for interference in the 2016 election by paying off a porn star to conceal their affair.

It’s up to you, New York, New York…
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Republican majority and its slow-walking Trump’s petition for criminal immunity, a love affair between the Georgia prosecutor and her staffer, and federal judge Aileen Cannon’s grinding to a halt the national secrets case, of all four venues only New York’s criminal case has materialized.  It follows that jurisdiction’s pattern of holding Trump to account in a myriad of the following civil adjudications.

First, New York writer E. Jean Carroll won an April 2023 $5M judgment of libel against Trump, then a second one in February 2024 for $83M because he continued to libel her in exactly the same way.

In late 2023 a case charging business fraud brought by the state’s Attorney General resulted in a Feb. 16 judgment of $454M. 

Ah, the pundits
Then the first criminal case charged against Trump on April 3, 2023 for hush money payments connected with election fraud went on trial on the 15th of April in 2024.   

Immediately, it ran up against a phalanx of pundits who deemed the case “too old” as it dealt with the 2016 election. Or “Too complicated” because of its baseline of misdemeanors that become felonies if connected to a larger crime.  “What jury could possibly follow that complex line of reasoning?” went the oft-repeated critique.

But none of that deterred the Manhattan jury of seven men and five women with diverse careers, ethnicities, and backgrounds.  Again pundits worried these jurors of Trump’s peers would have no staying power.  Many potential jurors begged off early, saying they could not be objective in a Trump trial, and others asked to be removed fearing violence from Trump followers.  “More defections will surely follow!” – again, courtesy of the conventional wisdom of the pundit class. 

But, again, punditry proved to be a bad predictor.  Those selected settled in, proving their mettle by arriving on time each day and paying close attention throughout the proceedings, according to court-watchers.  Another sign of professionalism – they never sought out eye contact with the defendant, sending the signal:
I’m here to do a job.  

Focused deliberations
And when the time came for deliberations, they did so efficiently – following Prosecutor Josh Steinglass’s suggestion to review tabloid publisher David Pecker’s description of meetings involving Pecker and Trump’s laying out the payment schemes for the two women seeking money from the would-be president.  

And following the Judge’s direction to believe convicted felon Michael Cohen’s testimony only if backed up with other evidence, they asked for key portions of his testimony to be read to them.  Then having verified that Cohen’s and Pecker’s testimony matched, this set in motion their finding Trump guilty on all 34 counts.

Certainly, too, we can’t forget the solid presentation of evidence and examination of witnesses by State Prosecutors Steinglass and Susan Hoffinger.  And, conversely, it’s hard not to remember the inadequacy of the Trump defense team led by lead
attorney Todd Blanche. 

Blanche started off on the wrong foot in opening statements by proclaiming Trump never had an affair with Stormy Daniels. But Daniels’ strong testimony and the equally strong message sent by the absence of Melania Trump throughout the proceedings undercut that declaration.  If Melania believed her husband, she’d be here could be inferred each day she failed to show up in court. 

Blanche also counted on breaking former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. Cohen was prosecuted by Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr via federal prosecutors in New York for the same charges, resulting in his incarceration while Trump remained free. But Cohen, too, performed against type on the stand  – coming off knowledgeable and calm under Blanche’s two-day long fusillade of questions. 

Nail in the coffin
Leaving not well enough alone, Blanche also chose the combative and haughty Robert Costello as the Trump side’s final witness.  This was the Trump insider who tried to strong-arm Cohen into falling in line with Trump, even after the FBI raided the former Trump staffer’s office, seeking evidence of Cohen’s criminality. Costello’s often flip and arrogant testimony alone may have led the jury to distrust him. But Costello dug deeper by insulting the judge.   Merchan’s clearing the courtroom to upbrade Costello out of earshot of the jury sent Costello and the nation the message, “You will not disrespect the rule of law.”

And then there was Trump
Finally, maybe it was Trump himself. There was his refusal to take the stand on his own behalf – instead, railing against and insulting the judge, jurors, and judicial process only outside the courtroom. Then there was Trump’s routinely closing his eyes throughout the trial as if to say, “This (and by extension, you the jurors) is all beneath me.  I choose to not look like I’m awake.”

There’s no doubt about it, New York has proved not only to be the city that never sleeps, it’s also now the city that never gave up on bringing Trump to justice.  Even though no additional new trials are slated, they’ll be plenty of Big Apple-related coverage of Trump’s predictable appeal and then the July 11 sentencing, slated four days before the Republican convention in Milwaukee. There, beginning on Monday July 15 the first man convicted of criminality will be put in nomination to be President of the United States.

The “So what?” of it all
Will the trial have any material effect on voter preferences this November? Since we have no similar history to go on, it’s hard to say.  Polls are not much help, since all to date were conducted before yesterday’s guilty verdict.  An ABCNews/Ipsos poll in
April showed a conviction would cause at least 20 percent of Trump supporters to “reconsider” voting for him, while just four percent said they would abandon him. 

But, given that Trump is just under 50 percent in most polls, a four percent loss would shave off about two points from his vote share. According to Aaron Blake in the Washington Post, “That’s a slight shift but it could matter in a country in which the past two elections have been decided by about one percentage point in decisive states.”

Thursday’s verdict changes the race
In the meantime, the New York verdict has changed the energy and upped the challenges in the presidential race and in legal circles.

“It is hard not to see today as a rebuke to the Supreme Court and Judge Cannon,” said MSNBC legal expert and former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. 

Politically, having to choose between a slightly older incumbent with no criminal history and a convicted felon who out of revenge intends to destroy American faith in its legal system puts the issue of preserving American democracy front and center. 

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow sees the verdict as bringing about a clear turning point leading up to the November election. Describing the new path the New York verdict has set us on, she said:
“This is a moment of democratic reset for us in our country. Accountability is happening here because we are a democracy and the rule of law is (now) applying to all of us.”

She added that Donald Trump is “running against the American rule of law” as much as he’s running against Joe Biden. 

The day after that verdict, some of us are beginning the first steps in that journey, believing anew that Donald Trump can and must be defeated. The New York verdict has not only set us out in a new direction, it’s given us a new-found spring in our step.

—trg

Who I write for…

Thank you so much for reading! Please leave a comment.