The news doesn’t just loom over the 2024 election; it carries with it untold consequences both for our legal system and our country more broadly.
A little less than 24 hours later, here are some takeaways from the immediate aftermath.
1. The Republican Party’s divorce from the rule of law is complete
It’s been a slow boil over many years, but this week truly solidified the GOP’s long drift away from the rule of law — and embrace of Trump’s misleading claims about the legal process.
Almost without exception, Republicans decried the verdict of Trump’s jury of peers. Even moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who offered vanilla responses to Trump’s indictments last year, decided that Trump has been singled out. Collins also falsely claimed that District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) had promised to prosecute Trump.
After Trump’s post-Jan. 6 impeachment, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) highlighted the fact that Trump still faced legal accountability. He conspicuously declined to weigh in on the former president’s Manhattan indictment when it landed last year. But now he has declared that the “charges never should have been brought in the first place.”
Going back further in the week, Republicans on the eve of the verdict echoed multiple false and highly misleading claims about the trial — including that the judge had ruled the jury didn’t need to be unanimous about Trump’s crimes.
Virtually no Republicans in their comments Thursday night actually reckoned with the substance of Trump’s conduct.
Republicans were somewhat critical of Trump’s attacks on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III during the Russia investigation. But as impeachments proceeded and legal scrutiny of him proliferated, they gradually came to embrace his “witch hunt” and “hoax” narratives.
The 2022 FBI search of Mar-a-Lago was a turning point, with Republicans instantly decrying the FBI’s actions despite knowing next to nothing about them. Now the cycle is complete. The Republican Party has chosen a side, and it’s not the side of the country’s judicial system.
One of the few Republicans who didn’t decry the verdict? Former Maryland governor and current Senate candidate Larry Hogan, who urged people to “respect the verdict and the legal process.”
Trump campaign senior adviser Chris LaCivita responded, “You just ended your campaign.”
2. It’s going to get ugly
Trump long ago signaled that his 2024 campaign and a potential second term would be about “retribution.” He also spurred a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol with violent rhetoric and false claims about voter fraud.
There’s little question that this history and a criminal conviction are a combustible mixture. And it’s already simmering.
Trump in a rambling 40-minute speech Friday morning avoided too much incendiary rhetoric, by his standards — though he did say witnesses were “literally crucified by … a devil,” referring to New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan.
But supporters are already gearing up for an ugly clash.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) called top Justice Department officials and Manhattan prosecutors “an American Gestapo.”
Top Trump influencers referenced the idea of “war.” Republicans called for investigations and prosecutions of those involved in convicting Trump, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demanding testimony from prosecutors. Tucker Carlson again floated the idea that Trump might be “killed” and said, “Anyone who defends this verdict is a danger to you and your family.” A couple of House members posted versions of American flags popularized by Jan. 6 protesters.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Trump, it’s that when he’s cornered, he has a tendency to lash out and become more extreme. Not just after the 2020 election; it’s also how Trump responded to the “Access Hollywood” tape in 2016, quickly summoning Bill Clinton’s accusers to appear at a presidential debate with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
We should expect plenty more where that came from.
3. Trump is pitted between his political and legal interests
Thursday wasn’t the end of the legal matter — not precisely. Trump still faces sentencing July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention begins. A major question is whether he’ll go to prison.
Perhaps nothing better exemplifies the conflict between his legal interests and his political ones.
Among the factors Merchan can consider as part of his sentencing decision are Trump’s remorse (or lack thereof) and his attacks on the process. Trump’s gag order is still in place.
That means Trump can keep attacking the process, but in doing so, he risks inflaming the judge and ratcheting up his punishment. Merchan has already suggested that Trump’s conduct might have intimidated witnesses and jurors, and a continued barrage could lead Merchan to reason that a stiffer punishment is in order.
This has already come into play in civil court for Trump. The judge in his civil fraud trial, which resulted in a fine in the hundreds of millions of dollars, cited Trump’s “complete lack of contrition and remorse” that “borders on pathological.”
Trump was largely careful on this front Friday. But he also engaged in an extended riff that was obviously about Cohen, whom his gag order says he cannot attack.
“Now I’m not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. But, you know, he’s a sleazebag,” Trump said. He cited how people called this lawyer his “fixer” and that he had “something to do with taxicabs and medallions,” both of which describe Cohen.
4. A Trump lawyer’s conspicuous reflections
To the above point, there is a strain of thought among some conservative legal minds that Trump helped torpedo his own legal defense. The idea was perhaps best enunciated by the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy in a column Wednesday that predicted a conviction in part because “Trump insisted that his lawyers subordinate his defense at trial to the political narrative he wants.”
McCarthy pointed to how Trump’s lawyers decided to contest that Trump actually had a tryst with Stormy Daniels and that he greenlighted Michael Cohen’s hush money payment to her — arguing that those arguments weren’t strictly necessary and undermined the Trump team’s credibility.
In post-verdict interviews Thursday night, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche offered some conspicuous comments. At the very least, he didn’t strain too hard to combat this narrative.
Asked on Fox News how involved Trump was in his defense, Blanche said Trump “jokingly said to us a lot, sometimes he wanted to be the litigator — you know, he wanted to be the one that was actually arguing, because he’s a smart guy and he knows what he’s doing.”
Fox host Jesse Watters asked about whether Blanche would have done anything differently, specifically mentioning witnesses. (The decision to call Robert Costello as the defense’s only witness has been roundly second-guessed, given Costello’s bizarre and combative performance. Trump himself has complained that more friendly witnesses weren’t called, apparently blaming prosecutors even though his lawyers could have called the witnesses.)
Blanche in his response cited the involvement of people outside the legal team.
“I don’t know. I’ve got to think about that, man,” Blanche said. “But we had a team. You know, my team is amazing. You know, the folks that work with us were — they are brilliant. And then the president has a team and they’re brilliant and we all did the best that we could, and I wouldn’t change anything that we did.
“Of course, I’m sure there’s going to be folks that are on your show that take a different view. And maybe I will, too, at some point, but no, we did the best we could.”
Blanche in a separate interview on CNN took more care to emphasize that he and Trump “were on the same page about strategy” and added, “I have no complaints about it.”
Blanche also said he expects to continue representing Trump.
