America is at a crossroads as two presidential contenders compete amidst circumstances that test the American judicial system and the depth of its democratic roots.
.png)
The verdict against Donald Trump on 30 May last month in which a Manhattan jury held him guilty on 34 counts of felony is one of the most decisive moments in the history of American law and politics. Trump now stands as a convict in the state of New York and awaits a possible sentence on July 11 which could land him in jail for four years. Trump's conviction in a scheme to pay hush money to porn actor Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign marks yet another twist in the legal and political challenges that have politics swirling around the former president since he left office. Even with the jury finding the suit valid—after 9 hours of deliberating over two days — the legal battles over the case are far from decided. On the optimistic side, Trump’s legal team is certain to appeal the verdict and his popularity has soared since the verdict, leaving a long-drawn political battle ahead.
The verdict against Donald Trump on 30 May last month in which a Manhattan jury held him guilty on 34 counts of felony is one of the most decisive moments in the history of American law and politics.
Although he became the first President to be convicted in a court of impeachment, there are lingering questions about the future of Republican candidate Donald Trump Jr.'s presidential ambitions. This complicates not only Trump's potential run for the presidency but also any legal challenges that would arise should he be elected. There is no legal obstacle to Trump's candidacy if he chooses to enter the race, as the American Constitution does not specify conditions or criteria for candidates in this regard.
Much of the debate centres on whether Trump would end up in prison, which seems unlikely. In New York, individuals with no prior criminal history convicted solely of falsifying business records are rarely sentenced to prison. Instead, punishments such as fines or probation are more common. Consequently, Trump's legal battles, while significant, may not impede his path to candidacy.
Although the electoral implications will not be affected, the political ramifications of Donald Trump's conviction cannot be overlooked. On one side, there is a growing sentiment among US voters that a guilty president is unworthy of their support. Opinion polls indicate that a guilty verdict could cost him crucial votes in an election likely to be decided by narrow margins in swing states. The opinion polls of Reuters/Ipsos held in April indicated that one in four Republicans said they would avoid voting for Trump if he was convicted in a criminal trial. In the same survey, 60 percent of independent voters not affiliated with any party stated they would not vote for Trump if he was convicted of a crime.
Somewhat contrary to such expectations, Trump has skillfully turned the episode into a potent tool for his political communication. He has already claimed that the Colombia-born judge “hates” him, suggesting a bias based on the judge's background, which plays into the rhetoric of the intense political debate around race in the US . Trump's assertion immediately after the verdict of being “a very innocent man” highlights has indeed struck with a large section of swing voters and Republicans who think that the New York trials deliberately blurred the lined between a misdemeanor and felony—a key distinction which could be decisive in shaping the outcome of the verdict on 11 July. Trump’s conviction could now be used as a strategy to defy the legal system with appeals and leverage the conviction to galvanise his support. By portraying himself as a victim of a biased legal process, Trump aims to maximise support from his followers and frame the conviction as a political witch hunt. This duality—the potential loss of votes due to the conviction and the mobilisation of his base through targeted political messaging—underscores the complex and unpredictable impact of Trump's legal troubles on his political future.
Somewhat contrary to such expectations, Trump has skillfully turned the episode into a potent tool for his political communication.
The emotional appeal of fundraising on Donald Trump's official campaign website witnessed a sudden surge, even crashing momentarily, shortly after the verdict was announced. Brian Hughes, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, reported that their digital fundraising system experienced a record number of supporters following the conviction. Trump is adeptly framing his legal battles as a personal crusade against a system that is using all state machinery to thwart his return to the presidency. After failed attempts to convict Trump in two impeachments and with many of its prominent members echoing his claims about the 2020 election being rigged, the GOPs’ response suggests that the limits of the Party’s loyalty to Trump have been tested. This unwavering support suggests that a potential second term for Trump could feature even fewer constraints than his already tumultuous first term.
Trump represents a complex landscape where the narrative of victimhood and defiance against institutional forces deeply resonates with his base, further polarising the electorate and endangering democratic stability. A more pressing concern arises from the language used by Trump supporters following the verdict, which threatens both law and order and the democratic values that the US has upheld for centuries. The days when liberalism had a significant influence on Republican politics appear to be over. There is a possibility of violent reactions from Trump supporters triggered by Trump's allegations of a rigged trial. The violent rhetoric from his supporters following the verdict, including threats to overthrow democracy and harm judicial officers, highlights the volatility of the current political climate. However, given that the court-induced gag order on Trump is in effect and the verdict is awaited, restrained supporter behaviour is expected. The potential outcomes could have far-reaching implications for the stability and integrity of American democracy.
America is at a crossroads where two potentially lame-duck presidents are vying for the White House amidst circumstances which could test the American judicial system and the depth of its democratic roots. History shows us that while institutions may have overlooked past presidents’ personal moral failings, they are less forgiving of systemic betrayals. Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump faced severe consequences for lying under oath.
America is at a crossroads where two potentially lame-duck presidents are vying for the White House amidst circumstances which could test the American judicial system and the depth of its democratic roots.
Though the US's institutional framework is robust, it is not immune to the turbulence of such crises. While American institutionalism may not be easily shaken by this episode, the strength of its mechanisms also means navigating through these 'stormy' uncertainties becomes increasingly complex. The resilience of these institutions will be critically tested as they uphold the principles of democracy in the face of unprecedented challenges. Ultimately, this episode will either reaffirm the strength of American democracy or expose its vulnerabilities.
Vivek Mishra is a Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
Pankaj Fanase is a Doctoral scholar, CIPOD, at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Vivek Mishra is a Fellow with ORF’s Strategic Studies Programme. His research interests include America in the Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific and Asia-Pacific regions, particularly ...
Read More +
Pankaj Fanase is a Doctoral scholar, CIPOD, at Jawaharlal Nehru University ...
Read More +
PREV
.png)
.png)