Of course, it's true that come November 5, the nation's voters could very well decide to ignore the historic guilty verdict that a Manhattan jury returned against Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon. And that is the conclusion many have already reached about the seismic event that just occurred in Courtroom 1530 of Manhattan Criminal Court: it is empty unless it ignites the will to file a popular complaint against the former president this fall.
That analysis is, in my opinion, shortsighted.
It has always been the case that the American people can override the rule of law, a normally slight risk that has risen sharply in recent years under the whip of a would-be tyrant. That's the message an angry, pale Trump delivered as he left the courtroom where a jury of seven men and five women gave prosecutors everything he asked for by convicting him of 34 felony counts. “The real verdict,” Trump barked, “will be on November 5th by the people.”
In fact, the jury that returned the true verdict, and the judge who presided over the hush money trial and is expected to convict him in July, did their jobs conscientiously and even doggedly under a hail of insults and threats from the defendant and his supporters. . For years we have waited for such a measure of accountability for the unrepentant former president. Finally it arrived and the center held.
Unlike the insults, the praise received by the jurors and Judge Juan M. Merchán are more than deserved. Having attended most of the trial, I believe that the seriousness of his intentions matched the seriousness of his duties.
But it wasn't just the determination of the jury, judge and prosecutors that forced Trump to endure weeks of damning testimony in person and now face at least the possibility of a brief prison sentence. And it wasn't just the determination of the witnesses, some of whom retain loyalty or at least affection for Trump, but understood their legal duty to testify truthfully.
Merchan's firm grip on the reins reinforced his authority, but what really made the difference was his robe, or what his robe represents. Trump was forced to submit to an entire regime that ultimately stems from our deepest constitutional values of justice and equality under the law. How galling for a man who has such deep contempt for the rule of law rather than men, and who indeed seems incapable of understanding it.
Now what? First, Trump is an altered figure in the eyes of that law. He is no longer presumed innocent, he is proven guilty, a convict, a serial criminal. And like any other convict, he will have to sit through an interview with the probation office, which will prepare a report and recommendation for the judge based on its assessment of Trump's crimes and his acceptance of responsibility, among other factors. That does not bode well for a man who has gone his entire life without acknowledging his misconduct.
Merchan set sentencing for July 11, when he might as well take into account Trump's perverse lack of remorse and his contempt for the system that convicted him. The sentence will be at the discretion of the judge, who will no doubt endeavor to handle her as he would any other similarly convicted criminal.
Then will come the inevitable appeal of the conviction, in which Trump's lawyers will likely argue that the trial was tainted by several serious errors. And the legal issues here were complicated enough to present a risk of reversal, regardless of how Merchan handled them.
But the measured pace of justice ultimately stopped serving Trump's interests in this case. It will be a year and a half or more before there is any possibility of reversal of the sentence or conviction. By then, Trump appears to be either a convict in other forums (and today's groundbreaking result can only make the convictions in his three other criminal cases more plausible) or a president throwing a wrecking ball at the entire legal system.
However, once again, that prospect has always been on the horizon. However, the full and fair functioning of the rule of law to hold a former president accountable was not.
On the contrary, in recent years it has often seemed that a combination of power, legal bluster, friends in high places (some of them wearing judicial robes) and strange good luck would invariably combine to insulate Trump from the law. That's supposed to apply to all of us. In fact, we can expect that at some point in the coming weeks, the US Supreme Court will issue an opinion that will serve both to elevate future presidents above the law to some extent and to prevent the most important trial Trump faces. , the federal trial. 6 case, until after the elections.
Today, however, the law prevailed in a way that was both basic and majestic. Trump received a fair trial and due process, no more and no less than the next defendant to occupy the same seat in the same ramshackle courtroom where he spent most of the last six weeks. Given all the powerful forces aligned against the rule of law in recent years, we should see it as nothing less than a triumph in itself.
Harry Litman is the host of Podcast “Talking about federals” and the Talking about San Diego Speaker series. @harrylitman
