The court's decision on Trump is a Pyrrhic win for Democrats.

Viewpoint: Democrats Achieve a Bittersweet Win with Trump Verdict

## Josh Green: Will this be the decisive blow against Trump's campaign?

The anti-Trump movement has been celebrating strongly since Thursday, believing that the guilty verdict on all 34 charges of falsifying business records could be the final nail in the coffin for Trump's re-election campaign. But is this true?

Trump's personal issues and baggage have been well-known for years, including his alleged affairs with adult film actresses. Could a conviction for miscategorizing business expenses really change the minds of many voters who already support him? It's hard to believe that this will be the kind of revelation that would discourage his supporters.

If anything, this will likely just further confirm conservative beliefs that there's bias against Trump. The Biden campaign's decision to hold a press conference in front of the courthouse, featuring actor Robert De Niro, only enhances this image.

In the immediate aftermath, Trump's poll ratings might take a slight hit. However, by November, this incident is likely to be long forgotten, or it could even be seen as proof by Republicans that the "elites" are willing to bend the rules to get Trump while he refuses to cave.

Jen Debner: The Possible Sentencing for Trump

This case is one of the most unique in the judicial system, making it difficult to foresee Judge Juan Merchan's final ruling. Despite previously appearing before Judge Merchan, I cannot predict his sentencing style in this situation. But there is a possibility that Merchan won't impose any real penalties on Trump.

In comparable financial crimes or business fraud cases in New York, prominent businesspeople have faced incarceration. Quite often, judges use their discretion to determine sentences. Every judge has their own preferences regarding sentencing, and there's no way to predict how they'll decide.

Trump could face up to a maximum of 1 and 1/3 years to 4 years in prison for each of the 34 charges. If the judge sentences Trump to jail time, it's likely he will spend it in the city jail, Rikers, which is located on an island and notorious for its dismal conditions. If the sentence exceeds a year, he would be sent to a state prison further away from Manhattan.

The most typical outcome in these types of cases is five years of probation. However, such an outcome would require Trump to consistently report to his probation officer and often request their permission for any travel. This wouldn't be feasible for a presidential candidate or a former president.

I don't anticipate that Trump's appeals will be successful, as there may be legitimate grounds for appeal based on evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, but they might not hold up in court. There were no major issues that would warrant an effective appeal.

Jim Bosco: The legal team's missed opportunities

The fact is: this was a defensible case that wasn't well defended. The defense approach was uncoordinated and complicated, failing to provide a clear position to the jurors.

Their main focus should have been on discrediting Michael Cohen's testimony, as the lack of evidence directly linking Trump to the falsification of business records was a primary weakness in the prosecution's case. The extensive attention on Trump's affairs with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels (denied by Trump) only strengthens the prosecution's claims of election interference.

The defense needed to simplify their argument and focus on this critical defense. The muddled cross-examination and closing statements didn't help their case.

It's safe to conclude that this case could have been handled better. From start to finish, the defense never found the spotlight in the courtroom. The weak defense has allowed the prosecution to monopolize the headlines with their narrative of Trump's alleged crimes.

Although it is likely that Trump will win over voters, a judgment is unlikely to occur until after the election. There are potential options for appealing, however, inadequate legal representation will not be one of them as the standard is very elevated.

It was both surprising and quick when jurors reached their verdict in the guilty case. It was also shocking that former president Donald Trump was found guilty of all counts. I had expected the jury to at least split the charges by convicting him on some and not others.

Timothy C. Parlatore: Democrats must concentrate on matters vital to voters

Following former President Donald Trump's guilty verdict, it is essential to focus on the other 335 million Americans who were not found culpable of falsifying business records to conceal hush payments to an adult film actress to impact the 2016 election.

A significant number of voters will not be persuaded by the verdict for understandable reasons. Presidential elections aren't determined by good moral character; rather, they're a job interview where voters question, "What are you going to do for me?"

Trump's response to the verdict is likely to embody his typical mix of vengeance, complaints, and conspiracies. Instead of reinforcing Trump's narcissism, Democrats should shift the attention away from him and center it on the American people.

The Democrats should focus on the lives of voters, not Trump's criminality. They should accuse Trump of proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; for targeting millions of Americans via removing Obamacare; for attempting to reinstate environmental rules and policies if oil executives donated $1 billion to reinstate him to the White House; for supporting the strongest border security bill in decades, only to tank it; for being selfish towards Russia's dictator, Vladimir Putin; and for seeking tax cuts for billionaires.

Concentrate on voters' lives, not on the politician. Democrats should suggest that Trump's policies might destroy the middle class, which should be construed as a (metaphorical) crime.

Paul Begala: Proving Trump is not exempt from the law

The conviction is not shocking, considering the solid evidence and the law explained to the jurors by Judge Juan Merchan.

The prosecutors presented a solid case, and the jurors seemed attentive and diligent, working under public scrutiny in a momentous case.

This is not solely a triumph for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his prosecutors but also for democracy and the law. In spite of Trump's attempts to demean the case as a "witch hunt," the courtroom proceedings perfectly embodied a prime example of our criminal justice system: an impartial judge, an impartial jury (inclusive of a juror who received news from Trump's Truth Social), and an indisputable result.

Now, Merchan must decide on sentencing, which is set for July 11th. Concerning the trial, Merchan frequently emphasized that he didn't wish to imprison Trump for flouting the gag order prohibiting the former president from commenting on witnesses, jurors, and other relevant individuals. Now, Merchan is expected to make a challenging decision: whether to handle Trump as a 77-year-old first-time, non-violent offender or as a felon who refuses to show any remorse and will undoubtedly continue his attacks against the system that sought accountability for his offenses.

Jennifer Rodgers: A resounding victory for democracy and the legal system

The verdict was anticipated, given the robust evidence and the judge's careful instructions to the jury.

Prosecutors made a compelling case, while the jurors appeared conscientious and diligent, working while being observed by the entire world in this groundbreaking trial.

This is not just a triumph for District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team, but for democracy and the rule of law. Despite Trump's efforts to undermine the case by referring to it as a "witch hunt," what transpired in the courtroom is the embodiment of what our justice system ought to be: an impartial judge, an unbiased jury, and a logical outcome.

The next step is to determine the sentence, which is scheduled for July 11th. During the trial, the judge consistently stated that he desired to avoid imprisoning Trump for defying the gag order that forbade him from speaking about witnesses, jurors, and others. Now, Merchan must decide whether to treat Trump as a 77-year-old first-time offender or as a convicted felon with no regret and who will undoubtedly continue his onslaught against the system that sought accountability for his wrongdoings. This is an unfathomably difficult choice for Merchan.

Just as Trump boasted during his 2016 run, "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any voters." However, the real controversy doesn't lie in the crime itself, but in the attempts to cover it up. With Trump on the verge of being elected again, what will be the reaction of swing and undecided voters? Probably not very forgiving.

CNN political commentator, SE Cupp, discusses the recent trial of former President Donald Trump's hush money case. The defense focused on discrediting Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-lawyer, as the only direct link to pin the blame on Trump. They labelled him as "the Greatest Liar of All Time" (GLoat) and a biased individual with a grudge against Trump. Despite their efforts, Cohen's testimony was backed up by many other pieces of evidence, making it difficult to refute.

The jury wasn't swayed by the defense's attacks on Cohen and began seeking clarifications on certain aspects of his statements. They seemed more interested in finding evidence that would back up Cohen's claims and any other proof that could potentially prove Trump's guilt. In the end, the overwhelming corroboration of Cohen's testimony was more than the defense could handle. The jury found Trump guilty based on the circumstantial evidence provided, which painted a highly damning picture.

Joining the conversation is criminal defense attorney and CNN legal analyst, Joey Jackson. According to Jackson, Team Trump's efforts to discredit Cohen and paint him as biased backfired as the jury chose to believe Cohen's testimony. The overwhelming evidence in support of Cohen's claims left very little room for reasonable doubt. The jury's decision was not only damaging to Trump, but also put a spotlight on the conduct of the Republican party and its refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing by someone as high-profile as Trump.