From: allin
A significant verdict was announced in the Trump trial in New York City, finding Trump guilty on all 34 felony charges [00:00:17]. The sentencing is scheduled for July 11th [01:21:00].
The Trial and Charges
The New York hush money trial lasted six weeks and included testimony from 20 witnesses [01:20:33]. The jury deliberated for about a day and a half [01:20:31]. A key moment in the trial involved Trump’s CFO, who outlined the terms of payments made to Michael Cohen [01:20:38].
The case centered on falsifying business records, which is considered a serious crime in New York City, the financial capital of the world [01:26:47]. New York also takes election interference very seriously, with a history of cases against minor infractions like ballot stuffing [01:27:50]. According to one panelist, the legal theory for the felony conviction involved falsifying business records as part of a “second crime” related to election interference [01:27:32]. The jury’s unanimous decision was based on the belief that these actions were taken to save Trump’s election chances following the Access Hollywood tape [01:29:14]. Witnesses, including Michael Cohen, Allan Weiselberg, and the National Enquirer’s Pecker, reportedly testified that the payments were made out of fear it would reduce his chances of being elected [01:29:32].
Grounds for Appeal
Several grounds for appeal were highlighted:
- The judge is a Biden donor with a daughter working for Biden [01:22:22].
- Prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, such as Stormy Daniel’s testimony, was admitted [01:22:27].
- Trump was unable to call his election law expert, former FEC head Bradley Smith [01:22:32].
- The prosecution never explicitly named the “second crime” [01:22:37].
- The judge allowed the jury to choose from a range of options for the “second crime,” including tax crimes with no presented evidence and federal election crimes outside the court’s jurisdiction [01:22:43].
It is speculated that the case will likely be tossed on appeal, but probably after the November 5th election [01:22:54].
Panel Reactions and Implications
Panelists offered varied perspectives on the verdict:
David Sacks’s View
Sacks characterized the case as a “novel, creative, and torturous” legal formula that would not have been brought against anyone other than Trump [01:22:09]. He asserted that both Merrick Garland’s DOJ and former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance had previously passed on bringing this case [01:21:24]. Sacks claimed that Alvin Bragg, a Soros-funded DA, won his election by pledging to get Trump [01:21:37]. He believes the entire point of the case was to be able to label Donald Trump a “convicted felon” [01:23:02]. Sacks views the case as a “sham” and an “outrage,” asserting that politically motivated cases against a former president and current frontrunner should be for something more substantial than “ticky tacky” issues [01:35:58].
Chamath Palihapitiya’s View
Chamath suggested that the verdict solidified existing opinions: those who hated Trump found their hatred confirmed, while those undecided or pro-Trump found more reasons to support him [01:24:40]. He noted the widespread confusion among legal scholars and experts, regardless of their political alignment, about the nature of the trial [01:25:04]. Chamath concluded that this moment reveals the fragility of U.S. government systems, where institutions might be convoluted and used by those in power against perceived threats [01:26:36].
Jason Calacanis’s View
Calacanis explained the legal basis for the conviction, emphasizing New York’s strict stance on falsifying business records and election interference [01:26:47]. He stated that the jury found Trump committed these crimes to save his election chances [01:29:59]. While acknowledging the legal validity of the concepts, Calacanis believes the case was “politically motivated” [01:30:38]. He predicts it will ultimately be a “speeding ticket” that gets overturned or results in a pardon by the governor [01:30:57]. Calacanis views this case as less legitimate than the document cases or January 6 case, which he considers “legit” [01:31:22]. He expressed sadness for America that Trump and Biden are the only choices [01:33:48].
Friedberg’s View
Friedberg characterized the trial as a “win-win” for Trump [01:23:20]. If convicted, it would fuel narratives of unfairness and “lawfare”; if acquitted, it would highlight perceived overreach by prosecutors [01:23:25]. He noted that the political calculus seemed “off” for the prosecution [01:23:48]. Friedberg mentioned reports of Trump’s donation website crashing and an increase in donations from non-Republican donors, suggesting the conviction has infuriated many people and generated sympathy for Donald Trump among independents and undecided voters [01:23:56].
Political Implications
The conviction’s timing, just four days before the RNC, makes the phrase “Donald Trump convicted felon” a likely talking point until November 5th [01:23:00]. Some believe this verdict will be the Democratic party’s “salvation” given their perceived weak candidate, Joe Biden [01:36:39]. However, it is also suggested that this strategy will likely not work [01:37:20].