Donald Trump, the former president and current Republican nominee, is now a convicted felon. In the aftermath of the verdict, Trump predictably complained that the trial was "rigged." This was not particularly surprising. Trump has also claimed the 2020 election, federal employment statistics, election polls, the January 6 Committee, the media, social media companies, search results, his impeachment hearing, the Pulitzer Prize, and the Emmys were "rigged." 

But, in the aftermath of the verdict, some pundits and politicians have advanced numerous arguments suggesting that Trump's convictions were illegitimate, unfair, or inconsequential. Today's Popular Information critically examines each of these arguments.  

The charges against Trump were "obscure" and "nearly entirely unprecedented."

One of the most common criticisms of Trump's felony convictions is the convictions are illegitimate because similar charges have not been brought against others. Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and current CNN commentator, argued in a column that prosecutors "contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey." 

As Honig acknowledges, at the most basic level, this is not true. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree. That charge, which is a felony, involves falsifying the records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime. A March 2023 analysis by Just Security found that prosecuting the falsification of business records in the first degree is "commonplace" in the New York District Attorney's office and used "to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized." The analysis summarized the dozens of similar prosecutions in a 24-page document. 

Prosecutors argued that Trump falsified the business record in order to commit another New York crime, a conspiracy to promote an election by unlawful means. Prosecutors argued the unlawful means included violating federal campaign finance laws with illegal corporate and individual contributions, falsifying other records (including those made by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen), and mischaracterizing the payments for tax purposes. 

It is true that prosecuting someone for falsifying business records to conceal a campaign finance violation is uncommon — but that is because the crime itself is uncommon. There are not that many people who run for political office in New York who also run their own businesses. And even fewer who falsify business records as part of a conspiracy to conceal violations of campaign finance law to help them win. 

The idea that the prosecution is unusual is important only if it suggests that the government routinely lets others get away with similar conduct. There is no evidence suggesting that this is true. 

The prosecutors didn't reveal their theory of the crime until closing arguments  

On a May 31, 2024 appearance on Fox News, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) claimed that prosecutors "introduced a new crime in the jury instructions," stating only then that "you can also turn [falsifying business records] into a felony by tying it to some tax law in New York, something they never mentioned throughout the entire trial." Other commentators also accused prosecutors of "hedging" or being "cagey" about the theory of the case. 

This is false. Prosecutors revealed that deceiving tax authorities was a component of the conspiracy on the first page of the "Statement of Facts," filed on April 4, 2023. The specific nature of these tax crimes — and other crimes that could elevate the falsification of business records to a felony — were discussed in great detail in a November 9, 2023 filing by the prosecution. 

The jury instructions allowed the jury to convict Trump without reaching a unanimous verdict

Fox News anchor John Roberts posted on X that Judge Juan Merchan instructed the jury that they do not need to reach a unanimous verdict to convict Trump. This claim is false. 

To convict Trump of falsifying business records in the first degree, the jury needed to unanimously agree that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit another crime, in this case, "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election." The judge was very clear in the instructions that the decision must be unanimous. "Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous; that is, each and every juror must agree to it," Merchan said. 

The New York statute on "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election" requires the violator to conspire to promote a candidate by "illegal means." Prosecutors argued that the conspiracy to promote Trump involved three illegal acts: "(1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws." 

But Judge Merchan instructed the jury that New York law does not require the jury to be unanimous as to "what those illegal means were." This is an accurate description of New York law. If Merchan were to have instructed the jury that they all needed to agree on one of the three potential illegal acts in order to convict, he would be making up a new law just for Trump.

The charges against Trump were not important

In New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait argued that Trump's convictions "did not represent his worst crimes" and that the charges themselves were "marginal." Similar arguments have been made by many other commentators. 

The charges against Trump stemmed from a conspiracy to conceal information from the public in the critical days before the 2016 election. Especially after the leak of the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump brags about sexually assaulting women, Trump's moral character was at issue. News that he had allegedly had an affair with an adult film star would have been a major story. At a minimum, it would have diverted attention from Hillary Clinton's email usage, which dominated coverage in the closing days of the campaign.

It's unclear how much of an impact Stormy Daniels story would have had on the electorate. But it wouldn't have had to do much to change the course of history. A shift of 80,000 votes across a handful of states would have tipped the balance to Hillary Clinton. 

There was nothing unlawful about how Trump tried to influence the election

Brad Smith, a former FEC commissioner, argued that the payments to Daniels did not violate federal campaign finance law because the money could be considered a personal expense, not a campaign expense. In making this argument, he ignores testimony from former AMI CEO David Pecker that there was an agreement to make these kinds of payments to protect Trump's campaign. 

But there is a bigger problem with Smith's argument. The prosecution did not just argue that the payments to Daniels violated campaign finance law. They also argued that the money paid to former Playmate Karen McDougal violated campaign finance law and was part of the same conspiracy. And that money was not paid by Cohen, it was paid by AMI. If this was a personal expense why would it be paid by a corporation and never reimbursed? Smith does not address the payment to McDougal at all.

This also helps explain why Trump needed to conceal the payments to Daniels by falsifying records. If those payments to Daniels were reported properly it would have opened up questions about similar payments to other women. And that could have exposed the illegal corporate contributions from AMI. 

The jury was hopelessly biased against Trump

Congressman Nick Langworthy (R-NY) said that Trump was convicted not by a "jury of his peers" but a "jury of adversaries." He said prosecutors "found the venue" where Trump "couldn’t win." Trump was tried in Manhattan because that is where he chose to live at the time. It was also the locus of his crimes. 

And there is evidence suggesting that one or more of the jurors was politically conservative. According to the court questionnaires, one of the jurors who was selected said they relied on Truth Social, Trump's own social network, and X, which has taken a sharp rightward turn under Elon Musk, for news. Another juror reported regularly watching Fox News and MSNBC. And according to reporting, one juror said that "he believed Mr. Trump had done some good for the country." Another juror found himself "agreeing with some Trump administration policies and disagreeing with others." A third juror said she appreciated that "President Trump speaks his mind."

To avoid conviction, Trump's legal team needed only to convince a single juror. All of the jurors voted to convict Trump on all 34 counts. 

The judge was hopelessly biased against Trump

Honig argues that the conviction is suspect because the judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, donated $35 to liberal political causes in 2020 — including a $15 donation earmarked for Biden. 

What Honig doesn't mention is that Merchan, who was randomly assigned the Trump case,  submitted the issue to an independent body, the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. The panel concluded that "these modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge." Merchan's decision to remain on the case was appealed by Trump's attorneys but rejected by New York's Appellate Division.