x.com
x.com
2. Perhaps the most common argument is that the charges against Trump were "obscure" and "entirely unprecedented." On the most basic level, this is false. The same office has prosecuted dozens of cases of first-degree falsification of business records over the last 15 years. It's the bread and butter of the Manhattan DA. It is true that prosecuting someone for falsifying business records to conceal a campaign finance violation is uncommon — but that is because the crime itself is uncommon. There are not that many people who run for political office in New York who also run their own businesses. And even fewer who falsify business records as part of a conspiracy to conceal violations of campaign finance law to help them win. The idea that the prosecution is unusual is important only if it suggests that the government routinely lets others get away with similar conduct. There is no evidence suggesting that this is true.
3. marco rubio and many others have claimed that prosecutors didn't reveal their legal theory against Trump until closing arguments. This is false. The verdict required the jury to find that Trump falsified business records to conceal an intent to commit another crime. The specifics of the prosecutors' theory were disclosed in great detail in a November 2023 legal filing.
4. Fox News' John Roberts claimed the judge instructed the jury that they did not need to reach a unanimous verdict to convict Trump This is false "Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous," Merchan said
5. The New York statute on "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election" requires the violator to conspire to promote a candidate by "illegal means." Prosecutors argued that the conspiracy to promote Trump involved three illegal acts: "(1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws." Judge Merchan instructed the jury that New York law does not require the jury to be unanimous as to "what those illegal means were." This is an accurate description of New York law. If Merchan were to have instructed the jury that they all needed to agree on one of the three potential illegal acts in order to convict, he would be making up a new law just for Trump.
6. @jonathanchait and others have argued that the underlying conduct in Trump's convictions was relatively unimportant. The charges against Trump stemmed from a conspiracy to conceal information from the public in the critical days before the 2016 election. Especially after the leak of the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump brags about sexually assaulting women, Trump's moral character was at issue. It's unclear how much of an impact Stormy Daniels' story would have had on the electorate. But it wouldn't have had to do much to change the course of history. A shift of 80,000 votes across a handful of states would have tipped the balance to Hillary Clinton.
7. @CommishSmith, a former FEC commissioner, argued that the payments to Daniels did not violate federal campaign finance law because the money could be considered a personal expense, not a campaign expense. Smith ignores testimony from former AMI CEO David Pecker that there was an agreement to make these kinds of payments to protect Trump's campaign. But there is a bigger problem with Smith's argument. The prosecution did not just argue that the payments to Daniels violated campaign finance law. They also argued that the money paid to former Playmate Karen McDougal violated campaign finance law and was part of the same conspiracy. And that money was not paid by Cohen, it was paid by AMI. If this was a personal expense why would it be paid by a corporation and never reimbursed? Smith does not address the payment to McDougal at all.
8. Congressman Nick Langworthy (R-NY) that the conviction can't be taken very seriously because prosecutors "found the venue" where Trump "couldn’t win." In other words the jury was hopelessly biased against Trump. First, Trump was tried in Manhattan because that was the locus of his crimes. Second, the jury included someone who reported getting most of their news from TRUTH SOCIAL, Trump's own social media network. And several jurors had nice things to say about Trump during voir dire.
10. Trump allies have claimed the judge was hopelessly biased because he donated $35 to liberal causes in 2020, including $15 to Biden. They don't mention that Merchan submitted the issue to an independent body, the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. The panel concluded that "these modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge."
Last edited:
