Donald Trump and his defenders have responded to his conviction in New York. 

            Claim: “This [New York County, i.e. Manhattan] is a place where Donald Trump got 5 percent of the vote.  There was no jury of his peers, it was a jury of his adversaries.”—Representative Nick Langworthy, (R-NY). 

            False: “Mr. Trump received 12 percent of the vote in New York County, not 5 percent, in the 2020 election.”[1]  Furthermore, “Mr. Trump’s defense also took part in jury selection, dismissing several prospective jurors.”[2] 

            Claim: First, “The judge, Juan Merchan, “told jurors that they don’t have to agree unanimously.”—Sean Hannity. 

False: “falsifying business records is a crime[3] only if done to conceal or aid another crime.  That other crime, according to prosecutors, was a state election law[4]…, which prohibits helping or preventing the election of a candidate ‘by unlawful means’.”  Additionally, “prosecutors do not have to prove that those crimes were committed.”[5] Judge Merchan instructed jurors that they had to agree unanimously” that Trump broke the state law; they did not have to agree unanimously about exactly how Trump broke the law.

Claim: Second, “We don’t know yet the [second] crime [used to enhance the misdemeanor falsification of business records charges into a felony] is…  [But] you [the jury] can turn it into a felony by tying it to some tax law in New York, something they never mentioned throughout the trial.”—Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl). 

            False: “Mr. Rubio is simply wrong to say prosectors (sic) “never” mentioned it through the entire trial.”  First, the April 2023 indictment charged Trump with falsifying business records “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.”  The prosecutors elaborated, saying that the other crimes were “violating election laws and deceiving tax authorities.”  Second, both the prosecutors and Judge Merchan “referred to the other crimes throughout court proceedings.” 

            Still, I’m confused.  Trump paid money to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen.  The payment was in return for her remaining silent about what the media sometimes delicately refers to as their “tryst.”  This seems to have been a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).  For understandable reasons, the press seems to prefer the term “Hush money.”[6]  The state law used by the prosecutors bans helping or preventing the election of a candidate “by unlawful means.”  If such a bargain or payment was not illegal, then the concealing of the bargain or payment by illegal means would remain a misdemeanor. 

            What was unlawful about paying Stormy Daniels to keep her mouth shut? 

---

[1] Linda Qui, “Trump Trial Is Subject Of Many False Claims,” NYT, 2 June 2024. 

[2] The prosecution and the defense each were allowed 10 peremptory challenges. 

[3] Ms. Qui wrote “crime” when she meant “felony.” 

[4] Ms. Qui wrote that “the crime was the state election law,” when she meant “violation of a state election law.” 

[5] I think that Ms. Qui is trying to say that prosecutors were alleging a conspiracy to commit a crime, which is illegal even if the crime is not committed.  But I’m not sure.  Where were the editors? 

[6] On NDAs, Non-disclosure agreement – Wikipedia; on “Hush money,” Hush money – Wikipedia