In the midst of the bustling rush hour, ex-president Donald Trump’s motorcade laboured its way towards his Midtown nest. This was around an hour post the verdict where he was found culpable of 34 counts of business record fraud. It was at this point that Manhattan’s prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, conducted a succinct press meet.
As Bragg exited the impromptu press conference venue, he prudently chose not to respond to a question that rippled through the room. A query that will echo through the summer’s heated election campaign trail and reverberate well into the winter when the most controversial US poll in recent memory will transpire. “Do you fear retaliation if Trump gets re-elected?” an unidentified person called after the district attorney.
Bragg did an impeccable job of camouflage if he was indeed revelling in the moment.
During the heated trial where Trump was held liable for all 34 felony accusations for business record deception relating to transactions to adult film actor Stormy Daniels amid his 2016 presidency bid, Bragg was on the receiving end of constant personal belittling and admonishment from the former president, particularly in the lead-up to the official hearings when the core of the allegations was under intense scrutiny.
The competency of the prosecution and defence will be subject to review in due course. But the jury’s pronouncement in the trial’s aftermath unequivocally highlighted the intensified political polarity between Republicans, Democrats and their constituents.
True to form, Trump was unreserved in his critique of the entire trial procedure given his propensity to find opportunities to disdain.
However, an influx of backing began to emerge from notable Republican party personalities. House Speaker Mike Johnson depicted the judgement in grand historical context defined by the court’s mechanisms.
He declared in a statement, “Today is a disgraceful day in American history. A day when Democrats celebrated the conviction of the leader of their opposition on farcical charges, depending on a testimony of a legally expelled, convicted criminal”.
Johnson was of the view, “This act found its roots in politics, and strayed from legality. The misuse of our justice system has been characteristic of the Biden administration, and today’s decision reinforces the Democrats’ relentless quest to stifle opposing views and crush political adversaries. The American public perceive this as a manipulation of law- a notion they feel is unjust and precarious.”
Subsequently, Florida Senator Marco Rubio was swift to decry it as “an utter mockery of our justice system.”
By teatime, both Trump and Biden’s campaigns had sent text messages requesting donations. The Iowa GOP, a state where Trump had previously made a clean sweep in all 99 counties, sent an email accusing the Democrat party of being corrupt. The email claimed that the left had lost all integrity and the party was now simply a shell of its former self. These messages were a clear sign of the unwavering Republican support for its candidate, echoing his constant assertions that the case against him and the trial were a farce, masterminded by Biden and his allies.
The developing stakes of the upcoming election were being determined in the moment, with the potential ramifications being starkly apparent. The remains of any mutual trust and respect between the two sides of American politics had entirely crumbled and disintegrated.
During the early coverage of this trial, it was referred to as ‘the trial of the century’ by some media networks. This phrase reminiscent of the summer of 1995 when the eyes of America were glued to the gripping trial of OJ Simpson on live television. Simpson, a once-admired former football legend, sadly died of cancer mid-way through Trump’s hush money trial.
However, any similarities between Trump’s trial and the sensational Simpson trial were largely extinguished by the smaller scale and lesser public exposure of the former. The lack of television coverage and specialised terminology contributed to limited public attention.
Presiding over the case was the stern and disciplined Judge Juan Merchan, who maintained a serious courtroom devoid of unnecessary theatrics or drama. This lack of cameras and restrained proceedings denied Trump the spectacle and limelight he thrives on.
On Thursday evening, Alvin Bragg downplayed his role in the judicial system during a discussion about the case. He claimed he was merely acting as per his job requirement, and this trial, situated in a dim courtroom far removed from the grandeur of Trump Tower, was simply another routine example of the justice system at work.
The defendant in question here is one of a kind in the history of America. Despite that, the trial unfolded and the verdict reached in a similar way to all other cases that pass through the courtroom doors: by following the laws and the facts, in a steadfast manner devoid of bias or favouritism,” asserted the judge. Regardless, Trump’s defence lead, Todd Blanche, stated their intent to appeal the verdict.
Even though it was thought to be the least complicated of all four pending criminal trials against Donald Trump, the outcome of this one has created ripples of huge historical significance. It was indeed an unusual event raising multiple questions – about the possibility of an appeal, the likelihood of Trump facing prison time (which seemed highly unlikely), his eligibility to vote in elections deciding if he could hold the office of president again, and whether this could mark the initiation of a new epoch where former American presidents face retroactive legal action. It also threw light upon the level of acceptance of court rulings by the representatives of the public.
The decision was quite unforeseen and took everyone by surprise, a scenario far removed from the reverberating effects of the OJ Simpson verdict that echoed throughout America, eliciting cheers and cries. New York City continued its usual hustle and bustle on a beautiful warm evening in late May, with the underground transport platforms filled to the brim, and open spaces in bars and restaurants being in high demand.
Renowned journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, appearing together on CNN, responded to the verdict with thoughtful and insightful comments. Woodward suggested that the situation underlines the narrative of an intensely polarised country that struggles to reach a consensus, while Bernstein labelled the event as momentous but warned that it could potentially fuel the flames in an already divided nation.