Former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He immediately rejected the verdict and criticized the judge and criminal justice system.
His loyalists in the conservative news media and Congress echoed his baseless claims, suggesting that he was a victim of a politically motivated trial.
This unity showcased the extent of Mr. Trump’s influence over his base.
Mr. Trump and his supporters targeted the judge overseeing the case, disparaged the judicial system, and distorted the details of the charges against him and his subsequent conviction.
Here is a fact check of some of their assertions.
What Was Said
“We had a conflicted judge, highly conflicted. There’s never been a more conflicted judge.”
— Mr. Trump in a news conference on Friday at Trump Tower in Manhattan
This is exaggerated. For over a year, Mr. Trump and his allies have claimed that Justice Juan M. Merchan should not preside over the case due to his daughter’s profession. Loren Merchan, the daughter, was the president of a digital campaign strategy agency that worked with many prominent Democrats, including Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign.
Experts in judicial ethics have stated that Ms. Merchan’s work is not sufficient grounds for recusal. When Mr. Trump’s legal team requested his recusal based on his daughter, Justice Merchan sought advice from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which found no conflict of interest.
The committee is likely to disagree with Mr. Trump’s characterization of Justice Merchan as the most conflicted judge ever, as it has recommended judges disqualify or recuse themselves in many cases due to conflicts of interest.
What Was Said
“Just so you understand this is all done by Biden and his people.”
— Mr. Trump in the news conference on Friday
This lacks evidence. Mr. Trump has not provided evidence that President Biden is personally orchestrating the hush money case. The case was initiated by Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, who operates independently from the Biden administration. The investigation into hush-money payments commenced in 2018, prior to Mr. Biden taking office and under Mr. Bragg’s predecessor.
What Was Said
“We weren’t allowed to use our election expert under any circumstances.”
— Mr. Trump in the news conference on Friday
False. Justice Merchan did not prohibit the election expert in question, Bradley A. Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, from testifying, but did restrict his testimony. Ultimately, Mr. Trump’s legal team chose not to call upon Mr. Smith.
In a pretrial motion, Justice Merchan ruled that Mr. Smith could testify generally about the Federal Election Commission and define terms relevant to the case, like “campaign contribution.” During the proceedings in May, Justice Merchan stated that allowing Mr. Smith to testify would lead to a “battle of the experts” with a prosecutor’s chosen election expert.
Mr. Smith mentioned on social media that Mr. Trump’s lawyers made the decision not to call him but criticized Justice Merchan.
What Was Said
“I’m supposed to go to jail for 187 years.”
— Mr. Trump in the news conference on Friday
This lacks evidence. It is unclear how Mr. Trump arrived at this figure. The exact punishment he faces, including potential jail time, will be determined by Justice Merchan at sentencing on July 11.
Each of the 34 counts carries a maximum prison sentence of four years, totaling 136 years. However, Mr. Trump would likely serve the sentence concurrently for a maximum of four years if he were to be incarcerated at all. It is also possible that Justice Merchan could order probation without prison time.
An analysis of similar cases — reviewing about 10,000 cases of falsifying business records, including 400 prosecuted by the Manhattan district attorney, since 2015 — revealed that roughly one in ten cases result in imprisonment. However, these cases typically involve additional charges.
What Was Said
“Everybody said it was a noncase, including Bragg — until I ran for office and then they saw the polls, I was leading the Republicans, I was leading the Democrats, I was leading everybody and all of a sudden they brought it back.”
— Mr. Trump in the news conference on Friday
False. Mr. Trump and his allies have frequently complained about the predominance of Democrats in Manhattan and argued that he could not receive a fair trial there. (Mr. Trump received 12 percent of the vote in New York County, not 5 percent, in the 2020 presidential election.)
While it is true that Mr. Trump’s team attempted, unsuccessfully, to transfer the case to federal court in Manhattan, where potential jurors would come from other New York counties with more conservative voters.
However, Mr. Trump’s defense participated in jury selection, dismissing several prospective jurors. The 12 jurors selected included individuals without strong opinions about him, one who appreciated Mr. Trump’s honesty, and another who believed the former president had made positive contributions to the country and received news from Truth Social, Mr. Trump’s social media platform. (It is noteworthy that some of Mr. Trump’s allies had predicted a hung jury and pinned their hopes on a particular juror who appeared to align with the defense at times and made eye contact with Mr. Trump.)
In Florida, Judge Aileen M. Cannon, appointed by Mr. Trump, has not yet determined when the trial in his classified documents case will commence. Interestingly, it is Mr. Trump’s legal team that has requested these delays. On the contrary, prosecutors have sought to expedite the case.
What Was Said
“It didn’t matter that Judge Merchan, you know, told jurors that they don’t have to agree unanimously. I’m like, really? Well, I beg to differ.”
— Sean Hannity, the conservative news personality, on his radio show on Thursday
False. This misinterpretation of Justice Merchan’s jury instructions has been repeated by Mr. Trump and several of his allies. In reality, Justice Merchan clarified to the jurors that falsifying business records — the charges against Mr. Trump — is only a crime if done to conceal or aid another crime. According to prosecutors, that other crime was a state election law referred to as Section 17-152, which prohibits influencing or obstructing the election of a candidate “by unlawful means.”
Jurors must unanimously agree that Mr. Trump violated that state election law, Justice Merchan explained, but do not need to unanimously agree on the specific unlawful means.
What Was Said
“The gag order, all of it, was — in my view — an unconstitutional restriction on his free speech.”
— Mike Johnson, the House speaker, in an interview on Friday on Fox News
This needs context. Mr. Johnson expressed his opinion, but it is important to note that an appeals court has rejected his stance. Justice Merchan imposed a gag order on Mr. Trump, and an appeals court upheld that order, dismissing Mr. Trump’s argument that it violated his First Amendment rights.
Under the order, Mr. Trump
Source link
