The landmark verdict in the so-called “hush money” trial on a late Thursday evening steered the 2024 US presidential election – and of course, the United States – into an unventured domain. Former president Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee despite his controversial standing, was found guilty of all 34 felony charges by a 12-member jury. This surprising close to the trial in Manhattan saw Donald Trump, the past president and prospective favourite to reassume the presidency, face the music.
The announcement of the verdict occurred in the last hours of the afternoon, with Justice Juan Merchan receiving the decision note by 4.20pm. At 5pm, the jury was back in the room, reading out the unanimous guilty verdict to a silent and stern Trump.
No sooner was the verdict announced, a statement from President Biden’s campaign rapidly followed, underscoring that no individual was exempt from the law. Trump had mistakenly thought he was invulnerable from legal repercussions arising from his personal actions, the statement asserted. It highlighted that the only way to prevent Trump from re-entering the Oval Office was through the electoral process. Guilty or not, Trump was still the probable Republican presidential candidate.
This verdict indisputably adds a new dimension to an already complex election narrative. A riveting close to a tale of law transgressed, typical to New York.
The jury panel of twelve was as diverse as passengers on any subway carriage in New York. The selection included an Irish foreman working in sales, a civil litigator, a corporate lawyer, a security engineer, a software engineer, a physical therapist, a speech therapist, an English teacher, a retired manager, a retired wealth manager, an e-commerce employee. Noted for their diligence and attentiveness, the jury trod through weeks of courtroom drama, a blend of tabloid tidbits, echoes of the Trump administration, and intricate technical discussions about invoices and payments.
From Tuesday onwards, the curious evidence of a case blending complex administrative and accounting elements with spicy gossip tales dated back to ten years ago had been closely studied. Several intriguing individuals were invited to testify in court. These included David Pecker, the previous publisher for the National Enquirer, who explained the ‘catch and kill’ strategy which involved purchasing potentially damaging celebrity stories with the sole purpose of not putting them to print.
Hope Hicks, the ex-White House communications director under Trump’s administration, was another witness, who displayed loyalty towards her ex-employer during her testimony which could still possibly be detrimental to his defence. Stormy Daniels, the one-time adult actress alleged to have an encounter with Trump after a 2006 golf competition in Lake Tahoe, leading to the controversial hush-money exchange a decade after, also spoke. Then there was Michael Cohen, Trump’s erstwhile lawyer and fixer, referred to in the summation by defence solicitor Michael Cohen as the Gloat: the biggest liar of all time.
While the jury carried on with its discussions this week, Donald Trump felt a sense of foreboding as he faced the prospect of numerous days, if not weeks, at the courtroom rather than progressing with his presidential campaign plans. Bound by a gag order for the duration of the trial, he made a public declaration on Wednesday outside the court, apparently readying his followers for bad news.
“The thing that strikes me, is, if you’re paying heed to the charges leveled by the judge, they’re very conflicting and unfair. These allegations are prejudiced. The whole set-up is prejudiced. The entire nation is in chaos, between the borders confusion and false elections, and here we’ve a trial where the judge is so biased he can hardly breathe.” Trump lamented, insisting: “No one, not even Mother Teresa, could contest against these charges.”
But he was still defiant. “However, wait and see. We’ll see how we fare. It’s appalling, indeed. Every legal pundit and expert have agreed that there’s no case here. It should never have been instigated, certainly not seven years back, certainly not amidst a presidential race. Joe Biden is solely responsible for this.”
The magistrate in question made donations to Joe Biden, and revealed even more troubling actions – however, I am bound by a restraining order and forbidden to divulge any further details. The severity of such misuse is immeasurable and unprecedented. Nonetheless, it was permitted to transpire. Reports suggest that not a single juror dared to meet the gaze of the ex-president when the judgement, marking its place in history, was announced. With the former lively courtroom drama gradually entrenched as a heavily examined legal saga in US history, the subsequent steps remain unpredictable.