National And International Reactions; ‘President Trump’s Guilty Verdict’
The impact of President Trump's guilty verdict on America's 200-year legal system is a subject of diverse opinions, reflecting the complexity of the situation.
The impact of President Trump's guilty verdict on America's 200-year legal system is a subject of diverse opinions, reflecting the complexity of the situation. Some argue that the verdict is a stain on the legal system, suggesting that the system has "sunk right into the toilet" and that the country is tainting its 200-year brand. This perspective implies that the verdict is a deviation from the principles and standards that the legal system has upheld for centuries.
On the other hand, there are those who view the verdict as a reaffirmation of the American principle that no one is above the law, seeing it as a testament to the endurance of the justice system for nearly 250 years. They believe the verdict reinforces the cornerstone of America's legal system and should be respected.
Israel and Western democracies have shown a varied response to Donald Trump's guilty verdict. The Times of Israel covered Trump's attacks on the U.S. justice system after his guilty verdict, suggesting these could be useful to autocrats like Putin, potentially undermining the United States’ global influence. This echoes concerns raised by analysts that such attacks could be exploited by authoritarian leaders to boost their standing among their own citizens and sway upcoming elections in the West, including the U.S. presidential election where Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. Although, President Trump’s campaign has raised over $200 million since the verdict.
In the UK, the guilty verdict was widely covered with a mix of reactions. The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Scotsman, The Mirror, and The Daily Star all featured the verdict prominently, with the latter proclaiming, "Orange Manbaby Is Guilty on All Counts." This demonstrates a range of reactions from serious to satirical.
France's Le Monde noted that the echo of the word "guilty" speaks both of the vitality of the state of law put to the test and of the unprecedented challenge emerging for American democracy. This suggests a recognition of the significance of the verdict in terms of legal and democratic principles.
In Nigeria, the Vanguard led with a quote from Biden’s campaign stating, "No one is above the law." This reflects their view that the verdict is a reaffirmation of the rule of law.
Italy's Matteo Salvini, the current deputy prime minister and leader of the right-wing Lega party, offered his "solidarity and full support" to Trump on X, formerly known as Twitter. This shows support from a right-wing leader in Europe.
Latin American countries have reacted cautiously to Donald Trump's conviction, with some expressing a sense of irony or concern over the state of democracy in the United States. The Latino Journal, for example, referred to the U.S. as a "banana republic" in light of Trump's guilty verdict, indicating a perception of political instability or corruption within the U.S. political system.
In contrast, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini have expressed support for Trump following his guilty verdict. Orbán described Trump as a "man of honor," suggesting a view that Trump's conviction may be politically motivated rather than a fair application of justice. Salvini offered "solidarity and support" to Trump, implying a belief that the trial was an example of judicial harassment or a politically motivated process.
Turkey, China and Qatar leadership have not publicly released statements regarding President Trump’s guilty verdict but instead relied on reporting from the United States.
Many world leaders have refrained from public statements. This is understandable given their countries rely on funding from the United States.
These reactions reflect a divide in international perspectives on Trump's conviction, with some viewing it as a sign of accountability and others seeing it as a politically motivated attack on a former leader.
Former FEC Chairman and appointed by then-President Bill Clinton and confirmed to the post by the United States Senate states President Trump did not violate FEC finance laws.
“There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure. And even if we assume otherwise, the prosecution's theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent. In 2016, the Post-Election Report was required to be filed on December 8, one month after the election. So the prosecution's theory, that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure until after the election, makes no sense at all.
Falsifying business records under NY law is a misdemeanor, unless done to hide a crime. Bragg says that crime was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), or of a NY statute making it illegal to influence an election by "unlawful" means.
Merchan was rather obviously biased here, but I'll give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just thoroughly ignorant of campaign finance law, and had no interest in boning up on it to properly instruct the jury.”
President Trump raised over $200 Million since the guilty verdict; $70 million in small donations and the rest are larger amounts from big players.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC were ordered by the FEC to pay $8,000 and $105,000, respectively for mislabeling payments that ultimately went to Fusion GPS.
Let’s put this in plain English by explaining the two tiered justice system by explaining how Hillary Clinton was fined for real illegal FEC campaign contribution expenditures to influence the 2016 Presidential Election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton and the DNC hired Perkins Coie law firm. The parties paid Fusion GPS over $1 million to draft research opposition for the 2016 campaign. The researcher was paid to craft what is commonly known as the Steele Dossier. The $1 million payment was booked as a legal expense instead which violates Federal Election Commission campaign regulations.
Under FEC regulations, a campaign donation refers to any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office. FECA also prohibits the converting of campaign funds for personal use if they are solely for election expenses.
Specifically, the law considers a contribution to be converted to personal use if it is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist “irrespective” of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a federal office holder.
District Alvin Braggs alleges Michael Cohen falsified Stormy Daniel’s $130,000 NDA payment by claiming the payment was a legal expense instead of a campaign contribution.
Per former FEC Chairman Brad Smith, under federal law, a court must prove the campaign expense could only ever be considered a campaign contribution. For example, if a candidate purchased a $2,000 Armani suit for a debate, this expense is considered a personal expense since it is part of the candidates personal wardrobe. In another example, a candidate decides to pay a lawyer to seal their divorce papers in order to spare embarrassment from both parties prior to an election; this expense is also not considered a campaign violation per the FEC. The court must prove the contribution was solely to influence an election and nothing else.
President Biden and his henchmen have effectively unleashed a reflective tidal wave of disgust from all political demographics. Let’s Make America Great Again by registering voters, become a poll watcher and be sure to vote in November. Our future depends on a Republican Presidential victory in November and including the same with a historic numbers of Republican Senators and Republican House of Representatives.