Trump is guilty on all counts in NYC trial

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, stumbles over ethics questions and into June.

What does it mean to have a former president convicted of felonies and running for president?

We’re about to find out.

A New York jury unanimously convicted Donald Trump on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records that he faced in Manhattan, announcing their verdict just after 5 p.m. Thursday.

“I’m a very innocent man,” Trump said to the cameras less than 30 minutes later, the perfect reflection of his inability to accept responsibility for anything.

Although the former president said “the whole thing is a disgrace,” he was, nonetheless, convicted by the jury on all counts after just two days of deliberations in the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The charges and trial centered on a hush-money payment to paid to porn star Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election and efforts to hide reimbursements for that payment to Michael Cohen, a former lawyer to Trump.

Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a crime. As I have maintained since it was brought, I thought it “seemed proper” that Trump faced these charges.

A jury on Thursday clearly signaled their agreement. Trump is, of course, expected to appeal, but Judge Juan Merchan carefully steered the unprecedented trial and was certain to keep focus on providing Trump with a fair trial throughout the extensive pre-trial and trial process.

The fallout from Trump’s conviction remains to be seen, but its import could not be more clearly presented than by the fact that his sentencing is set for July 11 — just four days before the start of the Republican National Convention, where Trump is set to accept the party’s nomination for president.

That the party’s leaders are almost certainly not holding a high-level meeting right now to decide how to replace Trump as the nominee, but are more likely on a conference call with Trump talking about how to buttress his nomination, is itself a sign of a failed party.

On a larger level, though, this is a moment for America to step back from the precipice and end the era of Trump. Yes, it will require much more than Donald Trump losing the election to do so, and Trump is far from the only problem we face, but it would be a start to ensuring that he faces accountability for what he has done — and continues to do — to this nation.

---

Speaking of accountability, or the lack thereof

After issuing decisions addressing the First Amendment and government coercion, ineffective assistance of counsel in capital cases, and preemption claims under banking laws on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will be going into June with more than 30 decisions remaining.

Among the biggest decisions left are more than a half-dozen cases at the center of some of our largest political fights — involving abortion access, Donald Trump and January 6, social media companies, guns, and the federal government’s ability … to govern.

The decisions will come after at least two of the conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito — have made efforts this week to take ethics questions about Alito’s participation in the Trump and January 6 cases off the table before we get into June.

After Alito’s dismissive recusal refusal was sent to members of Congress on Wednesday, Roberts followed up Thursday with a barely more restrained response to Sens. Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse’s letter of last week. (The pair are the chairs of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, respectively.)

First, Roberts essentially brushed aside any Alito recusal questions by noting that it is Alito’s call and then writing, “It is my understanding that Justice Alito has sent you a letter addressing this subject.”

Then, as to the meeting that Durbin and Whitehouse requested with Roberts, Roberts reiterated his poor argument from last year that his speaking to members of another branch is an affront to the Constitution: “Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances.”

To argue that is to paint the beginnings of an argument against any oversight of either the executive or judicial branch by the legislative branch, and it suggests a view that “separation of powers” just means “separation of branches” — which has never been the case. To the contrary, the interdependence of and accountability between the branches are key aspects of the constitutional structure.

Roberts then wrote that “the format proposed — a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court — simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable.” This is, simply put, sloppy. Yes, Durbin and Whitehouse requested a meeting, but they simply never suggested a format, let alone one “with leaders of only one party.”

Here are the two mentions of the meeting, at the beginning:

And, the end:

Also, they literally Cc’ed their equivalent ranking members — Sens. Lindsey Graham and John Kennedy — on their letter, just as Roberts did on Thursday.

Closing of Durbin and Whitehouse letter of May 23, 2024

Closing of Roberts letter of May 30, 2024

In short, Roberts wrote in response that he is neither addressing the specifics of the ethical questions raised about Alito nor is he willing to address questions about ethics and the Supreme Court more broadly with the Senate leaders responsible for the relevant committees.

Next up, June.