A plurality of Americans, 50%, think former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict on all 34 counts in his hush money trial was correct, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds, and almost as many, 49%, think he should end his 2024 presidential campaign over the result.
Still, following the historic criminal trial that ended this week in a first-ever conviction of a former president, Trump’s favorability has remained stable at 31%, according to the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Trump was found guilty of 34 counts on Thursday in his trial related to falsifying business records regarding a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election in order to keep her quiet about their alleged affair.
The former president has vowed to appeal, saying on Friday that “bad people” had levied the case – and charges– against him.
Forty-seven percent of Americans said they think the charges against Trump in this case were politically motivated, while 38% say they were not. At the same time, the slight majority at 51%, think Trump intentionally did something illegal in this case. Twelve percent think Trump did something wrong but not intentionally, and 19% believe he did not do anything wrong.
The proportion of Americans who say Trump should end his presidential campaign as a result of this verdict is 49%, which is similar to findings from an April 2023 ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted shortly after the Manhattan grand jury handed down the indictment against him in this case. In the April 2023 polls, 48% thought he should suspend his campaign because of the indictment.
Biden’s favorability rating also remains low and unchanged, according to the new ABC News/Ipsos poll. His favorability rating currently stands at 32% compared to 33% in an ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in March 2024. Public reaction to Trump’s guilty verdict falls along partisan lines. For example, 83% of Democrats think the verdict was correct and 79% think he should end his campaign as a result, while only 16% of Republicans say the verdict was correct and the same percentage say he should end his presidential bid.
Because both Biden and Trump are broadly viewed unfavorably, the election could come down to independent voters, or even more specifically, those who dislike both candidates – sometimes referred to as double-haters.
A majority of Independents think Trump’s verdict was correct, 52%, and the same amount believe that he should end his candidacy. For double-haters, those reactions are even more pronounced — 65% of Americans who view both Trump and Biden unfavorably think the verdict this week was correct, with 67% believing Trump should end his presidential campaign.
Forty-five percent of Independents and 51% of double-haters think the hush-money trial was politically motivated, compared to 83% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats.
In the New York trial, Trump’s attacks are largely directed at the district attorney, the judge and the jury — all of which he’s claimed are unfairly politically biased against him. Trump has also come after President Biden, claiming without evidence, that he was behind the prosecution.
“If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said during a press conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan. “These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people.” Biden, in his own remarks later on Friday, pushed back that the rule of law was “reaffirmed” and statements questioning the legitimacy of the process were “dangerous.”
METHODOLOGY
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted using the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® May 31-June 1, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 781 U.S. adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.7 points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls. Partisan divisions are 31-29-32 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents. See the poll’s topline results and details on the methodology here.
ABC News’ Dan Merkle and Ken Goldstein contributed to this report.
Former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump leaves Manhattan Criminal Court after he was convicted in his criminal trial in New York, May 30, 2024. (Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records on Thursday, but that will not stop him from being able to run for election in November — and the case is not over yet.
He is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention, where he is expected to become the official Republican Party nominee for president.
Before he can file an appeal of the conviction, he needs to be sentenced by Judge Juan Merchan, according to Fordham University Law Professor Cheryl Bader.
“The case is not considered complete until after sentencing. After sentencing, I’m sure his team will file a notice of appeal and then a briefing schedule will be set,” Bader told ABC News.
“I’m sure he’ll be looking to appeal on a whole host of different issues that came up during trial from the jury selection to various evidentiary rulings,” Bader said.
Sentencing
Before sentencing, the Probation Department will be charged with preparing a pre-sentence investigation, or a probation report, for Merchan, which will include interviewing Trump. The report will provide Merchan with a sentencing recommendation, experts said.
Both the defense and prosecution will also submit their recommendations for sentencing to the judge for consideration.
Some experts told ABC News it is highly unlikely Trump will be sentenced to prison time.
“I would be surprised if we see a sentence of incarceration,” Bader said. “He has no criminal record, it’s a nonviolent crime. He’s of a significant age where people tend to age out of criminal conduct, and the logistical issues are large here.”
“If he were sentenced to a term under a year, normally, he would be sent to Rikers Island, but that’s not going to work in this case — and so there are logistical issues of where to house him — and a lot of political implications of incarcerating the Republican nominee, just prior to the election,” Bader said.
Bader also pointed to Merchan not sending Trump to jail over his violations of the gag order issued against him in the case.
“I’d be very surprised if we see a sentence of incarceration, and I think Judge Merchan has tipped his hand a little bit in telling former President Trump that he doesn’t want to send him to jail,” Bader said.
Bader said other sentencing options include community service or fines, but those could be logistically difficult or fail to serve the goal of punishment in this case.
“If we weren’t living in Trump world, the punishment would be the conviction itself. Most people that have run for president in the past would consider 34 felony convictions to be a death knell for their prospects,” Bader said.
Another expert said it is likely Trump could be sentenced to probation or a conditional discharge, but concurred that it is very unlikely he will get any prison time.
“He doesn’t need to be supervised by the probation department. He should be given what’s called the conditional discharge, which is an unsupervised period of probation where you don’t report to anyone just stay out of trouble,” Cornell University Law Professor Randy Zelin said.
His sentencing could have an impact on legal procedures in the unlikely event he is sentenced to incarceration.
Any sentence that deviates from what legal experts expect could be because Trump has put the court in an “awkward position, because he is daily thumbing his nose at the justice system and showing absolutely no respect for the law,” Zelin said.
“Had the former president not being outside every day calling Justice Merchan corrupt and conflicted and terrible and bad-mouthing his daughter and bad-mouthing him, I would say it would be a no brainer, he’s not going to jail,” Zelin said.
How does an appeal work?
Once he is sentenced, the appeals process can begin.
“Once he is sentenced, then his time to appeal — that clock begins to tick — and he will have 30 days to file his notice of appeal and then there will be a schedule sent down for him to what’s called ‘perfect’ his appeal — and that’s when you actually file your appellate briefs,” Zelin said.
A Notice of Appeal — a court filing indicating a person’s intent to proceed with an appeal — must also be mailed or delivered to the prosecuting attorney.
“The case will then be sent down for oral argument in the appellate division,” Zelin said.
From there, it could take months before his case goes before the appellate division, unless his attorneys submit emergency applications, hoping to get an appeal heard before the election in November, Zelin said.
The defense would first appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department in Manhattan. If they lose that appeal, they could try to appeal further to the Court of Appeals — New York’s highest court — but that court only hears a small percentage of the criminal appeals that are requested.
“I’m sure the former president will argue that ‘the appeal means nothing to me if it comes after the election, because if you end up throwing out these convictions, what good does it do me if I’ve already lost the election?'” Zelin said.
(WASHINGTON) — Twenty-three Ohio Senate Republicans joined Democrats on Friday during a special legislative session to pass a bill that extends the state’s ballot certification deadline so that President Joe Biden would be eligible for November’s general ballot.
The bill’s passage comes despite a move by the Democratic National Committee earlier this week that evades the original scheduling issue entirely.
The state Senate also passed a bill that would bar foreign contributions to ballot issue campaigns. It passed without any Democratic support.
Both bills were passed by the state House on Thursday and now will head to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk for his signature. The Republican governor had called the legislature into a special session this week in order to address these issues.
After DeWine signs the bill, Ohio’s ballot certification deadline will be Aug. 23, following the Democratic Party’s nominating convention, which starts on Aug. 19.
Earlier this week, the DNC announced it would virtually nominate the president ahead of its in-person convention in order to work around the need for an Ohio extension in the deadline. With the passage of the Biden ballot fix in the state, the DNC plan is not necessary — however the DNC said it is planning to move forward with its virtual roll call nomination of Biden ahead of Aug. 7, Ohio’s original deadline.
In a statement, a DNC spokesperson said they “already” took their own action despite “Ohio Republicans’ shenanigans” of pushing through a separate bill through the special legislative session that bars foreign contributions to ballot issue campaigns — a bill that Democrats say is a direct response to the ballot measure last year that enshrined abortion protections into the state’s constitution.
“Joe Biden will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and we are already taking action to make sure that’s the case, regardless of Ohio Republicans’ shenanigans,” Hannah Muldavin, DNC senior spokesperson said in a statement.
Several Republicans did not vote for the passage of the Biden ballot fix bill. Others said they would support it, even in light of former President Donald Trump’s historic conviction on Thursday.
“This bill does give me heartburn. And while the Democrats nationally are blatantly attempting to suppress the votes by weaponizing the justice system and their shenanigans — shenanigans and kangaroo court, it is tempting to say to the DNC that if you can’t follow Ohio existing law, then you don’t deserve to have your candidate on the ballot,” said Republican Sen. Kristina Roegner on the Senate floor on Friday.
“But two wrongs don’t make a right. And we won’t stoop to their level,” Roegner added.
Democrats applauded Republicans for allowing Biden to be on Ohio’s ballot.
“We have a very divided country right now. And my hope is that actions such as [those] we’re taking right now with House Bill Two are an example of how we can work together. As my colleagues across the aisle just said: to have a fair fight, to bring it on. I think that’s awesome,” said Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio said.
After both bills were passed, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who initially alerted Democrats about the Biden ballot access discrepancy in April, only applauded the General Assembly’s passage of the foreign money bill.
“As I’ve said, Ohioans deserve confidence in the integrity of our elections. Although there’s been a concentrated effort to confuse this issue through aggressive soccer-flopping and misinformation, this matter is simple: foreign nationals should not be able to interfere with our elections,” LaRose said in a statement.
“The legislation passed today takes an aggressive step toward banning foreign nationals from funding Ohio elections and further cements Ohio’s standing as a national leader on election integrity. I applaud the General Assembly for moving quickly to close this campaign finance loophole and I call on every state, as well as Congress, to pass similar measures,” he added.
In this Sept. 6, 2012, file photo, First lady Michelle Obama applauds with her mother Marian Robinson during the final day of the Democratic National Convention, in Charlotte, North Carolina. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Marian Robinson, former first lady Michelle Obama’s mother, died on Friday at the age of 86, according to the family.
Robinson was a fixture in the Obama White House and resided there during his tenure to help watch over the first couple’s daughters, Sasha and Malia.
Michelle Obama said in a post on X that her mother “was the same steady backstop for our entire family.”
“Her wisdom came off as almost innate, as something she was born with, but in reality it was hard-earned, fashioned by her deep understanding that the world’s roughest edges could always be sanded down with a little grace,” the family said in a statement.
Born and raised in the South Side of Chicago, Marian Lois Shields would go on to study teaching before getting a job as a secretary. She married Fraiser Robinson in 1960 and the couple had two children, a son Craig in 1962 and a daughter Michelle in 1964.
The family said that Robinson was very encouraging to her daughter when she “married a guy crazy enough to go into politics.”
“At every step, as our families went down paths none of us could have predicted, she remained our refuge from the storm, keeping our feet on solid ground. On Election Night in 2008, when the news broke that Barack would soon shoulder the weight of the world, she was there, holding his hand,” the family said.
When the Obamas moved into the White House, Robinson agreed to move in after “a healthy nudge,” to help raise the first couple’s girls.
“‘Just show me how to work the washing machine and I’m good,’ she’d say,” the family said.
The family noted that Robinson tended to prefer to stay upstairs and not hobnob with the guests that frequented the White House, with one exception: Pope Francis.
“Over those eight years, she made great friends with the ushers and butlers, the folks who make the White House a home. She’d often sneak outside the gates to buy greeting cards at CVS, and sometimes another customer might recognize her. ‘You look like Michelle’s mother,’ they’d say. She’d smile and reply, ‘Oh, I get that a lot,'” the family said.
Robinson returned to Chicago after Obama’s second term ended and remained active in the family’s life.
Three weeks ago Michelle Obama posted a photo of her and her mother on her Instagram page celebrating Mother’s Day.
The cause of her death was not immediately revealed.
Robinson was survived by her children, her son and daughter-in-law and six grandchildren.
“In our sadness, we are lifted up by the extraordinary gift of her life. And we will spend the rest of ours trying to live up to her example,” the family said in a statement.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden reacted to Donald Trump’s conviction for the first time on Friday, criticizing those calling the trial “rigged.”
“The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed,” Biden said in remarks from the White House. “Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself.”
Biden went on to emphasize the case as a state issue, not a federal issue, and that Trump has the opportunity to appeal just like any other defendant.
“That’s how the American system of justice works, and it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like verdict,” the president said. “Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. As simple as that.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(AUSTIN, Texas.) — The Texas Supreme Court issued a decision Friday allowing a lawsuit challenging the state’s multiple abortion bans to continue, but the court refused to block the bans as the legal challenge continues.
The lawsuit was filed last year by women who say their lives were put in danger due to the state’s bans. Initially starting with five plaintiffs, the lawsuit now includes more than 20 women who say their care was impacted by the bans.
Texas has several abortion laws in effect prohibiting nearly all abortions, except in medical emergencies, which the laws do not define. Women filing the lawsuit said they were denied care despite having dangerous pregnancy complications.
While the lawsuit will be allowed to continue in a state trial court, the Supreme Court did not allow a temporary injunction on the bans while litigation continues. Lower court Judge Jessica Mangrum had granted the injunction against the bans as they relate to medical emergencies and fatal fetal diagnoses and denied the state’s request to throw out the case before the case was heard by the state Supreme Court.
In the court opinion issued Friday, justices pushed back against the claims made by women in the suit.
“Texas law permits a life-saving abortion. Under the Human Life Protection Act, a physician may perform an abortion if, exercising reasonable medical judgment, the physician determines that a woman has a life-threatening physical condition that places her at risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,” Texas Supreme Court Justice Jane Bland wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
“The law permits a physician to intervene to address a woman’s life-threatening physical condition before death or serious physical impairment are imminent. Because the trial court’s injunction departed from the law as written without constitutional justification, we vacate its order,” the majority opinion said.
The Supreme Court also found that the trial court had overstepped by permitting abortions “for any ‘unsafe’ pregnancy.”
“All pregnancies carry risks. The law limits permitted abortions to address life-threatening conditions “aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy.” While merely being pregnant may increase a mother’s risk of death or injury, pregnancy itself is not a ‘life-threatening physical condition’ under the law,” the court wrote.
“In differentiating ordinary risks attendant to pregnancy — those that can be treated short of an abortion — from conditions for which the law permits an abortion, the Legislature drew the line at ‘life-threatening physical condition.’ Because the trial court’s order opens the door to permit abortion to address any pregnancy risk, it is not a faithful interpretation of the law. A trial court has no discretion to incorrectly interpret the law in ordering a temporary injunction,” the court wrote.
The court also wrote that the trial court’s block of the bans as it relates to medical emergencies “departed from the law as written without constitutional justification,” the majority opinion said.
“Texas law permits a life-saving abortion. A physician cannot be fined or disciplined for performing an abortion when the physician, exercising reasonable medical judgment, concludes (1) a pregnant woman has a life-threatening physical condition, and (2) that condition poses a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,” the court wrote in its opinion.
“A physician who tells a patient, ‘Your life is threatened by a complication that has arisen during your pregnancy, and you may die, or there is a serious risk you will suffer substantial physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,’ and in the same breath states ‘but the law won’t allow me to provide an abortion in these circumstances’ is simply wrong in that legal assessment,” the court’s majority opinion said.
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement, “This ruling does not provide any real clarity to doctors, and it is deeply offensive to the women we represent — they are completely written out of the opinion as though they don’t exist or matter. Of course women on death’s door should have the most basic right of bodily autonomy to protect their life and health.”
However, the court opinion recognized that at least some of the women filing the suit had life-threatening conditions.
“The State does not contest that at least some of these complications present life-threatening conditions for which an abortion may be indicated,” the court said.
The admission comes months after the state Supreme Court declined to allow Texas woman Kate Cox to receive an abortion for a pregnancy with severe anomaly and large risk of debilitating health complications, including loss of fertility.
In explaining why it found that one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Damla Karsan, has standing to file the lawsuit, the court cited a letter sent to Houston hospitals by the state attorney general threatening liability if they allowed Karsan to provide Cox with an abortion. Before the Supreme Court declined to let her get an abortion, a lower court judge had ruled that Karsan could provide her with an abortion in Texas.
“We conclude that the Attorney General directly threatened enforcement against Dr. Karsan in response to her stated intent to engage in what she contends is constitutionally protected activity. A state official’s letter threatening enforcement of a specific law against a plaintiff seeking relief from such enforcement is a sufficient showing of a threat of enforcement to establish standing to sue,” the court wrote in its opinion.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Amanda Zurawski, described in her testimony last year going into sepsis after doctors said they could not induce labor because her fetus still had a heartbeat.
Zurawski said she was told she had an incompetent cervix, premature dilation of her cervix and would miscarry. Her water broke later that evening but she did not miscarry until three days later, she said.
“I went from feeling physically OK to shaking uncontrollably. I was freezing cold even though it was 110 degrees out. My teeth were chattering violently. I couldn’t get a sentence out. My husband Josh asked me how I was feeling on a scale from 1 to 10. I didn’t know the difference between 1 and 10 — which one was higher,” Zurawski said.
In reacting to the ruling Friday, Zurawski said in a statement, “Every day, people in Texas are being told that they have no options. It’s sickening and wrong. Our Courts should acknowledge all of our suffering and vindicate our fundamental rights to reproductive autonomy. We should not need to beg elected officials for our right to control our own bodies.”
Former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives to speak to the press after he was convicted in his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, May 30, 2024. — Seth Wenig/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump is firing up his fundraising machine after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush money trial — attending a campaign fundraiser with top Republican donors an on the Upper East Side Manhattan Thursday night and blasting out fundraising emails to small-dollar donors just minutes after the verdict dropped.
The Manhattan fundraiser was an intimate event, attended by a little more than a couple dozen people including staff, described by one attendee as “Very upbeat. Very positive.”
In attendance was top Republican donors like Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman, who, after the 2022 midterms, had called for a new generation of leaders in the Republican Party but more recently indicated that he would back Trump again.
Other attendees included longtime friend and donor Steve Witkoff, who had joined Trump at court several times throughout the trial, and WABC radio owner John Catsimatidis.
“He was in very high spirits,” Catsimatidis said on his his radio station Thursday night after attending the fundraiser, noting that Trump’s son Eric Trump was at the fundraiser as well.
“This is not the – not the A List … It was a AAA List,” Catsimatidis said of the donors that attended the fundraisers. He said Trump went around the donors asking who they think his running mate should be, adding Sen. Tim Scott, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s names were floated.
“A lot of people said to Trump, we don’t like Nikki Haley, but she might make a difference,” Catsimatidis said.
Overall, it was a relatively short fundraiser — Trump departing the venue less than two hours after his arrival, giving a wave to the public who gathered to get a glimpse of the former president.
“Never surrender!” one native New Yorker yelled, and Trump smiled from his motorcade.
“He was fired up,” a man exiting the fundraiser told ABC News.
In addition to mingling with high-dollar donors, the Trump campaign immediately began appealing to small-dollar donors off of his verdict, blasting out online fundraising messages, telling his supporters he had been convicted in a “rigged” trial.
“I was just convicted in a RIGGED political Witch Hunt trial: I DID NOTHING WRONG!” read a fundraising email, which was sent out minutes after the former president left the courthouse.
“They’ve raided my home, arrested me, took my mugshot, AND NOW THEY’VE JUST CONVICTED ME!” the email continued.
The fundraising page for Trump’s campaign went down for a few minutes after it was made public following the verdict. The campaign is claiming the platform was shut down “due to overwhelming amount of support.”
“WinRed is down due to the overwhelming amount of support out there, all across America! Stay strong, and thank you,” Trump senior adviser Dan Scavino wrote on X. “The site will be up and running again soon!”
Trump’s co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita wrote on X: “If you are one of the millions of American Patriots wanting to donate to Donald Trump’s campaign and you get an error message from @WINRED …don’t give up! Log back on and try again ! or Text TRUMP to 88022 Help us send weak @JoeBiden packing !!!”
Donors and fundraisers for Trump and the Republican National Committee told ABC News that this is an indication that the verdict is firing up Trump supporters.
“President Trump’s donation site just crashed. People are sending money like crazy. People are fired up,” said Bill White, a longtime friend and fundraiser of Trump.
White said a donor pledged $50,000 to the Trump campaign just 10 minutes after the verdict came out.
“I have a friend of mine in California, and he just texted me, I said, ‘Look I’m gonna get together some people for fundraising,’ and he said, ‘Count me in for $50,000,'” White said.
“[My husband] and I will be making another contribution in light of this – I don’t accept the jury verdict,” White continued, saying the verdict has fired himself up to contribute more as well. “It will 100% be overruled on appeal, and it may need to go to the Supreme Court.”
“Given WinRed was overwhelmed and shut down, I’d say so far positive indication on the fundraising side,” Ozzie Palomo, a former Haley bundler now raising money for the RNC told ABC News. “You’ve had some big donors come out days before the verdict knowing full well a guilty verdict was a possibility. If it didn’t scare donors then can’t see how it will scare them off now. There will be an appeal and it plays into Trump’s narrative.”
It took the jury 10 hours to come to their decision.
Trump, who was impeached twice while in office and found not guilty in both cases, has faced four indictments for much of the 2024 race. The case in Manhattan dealt with a hush money payment to a porn star and his attempt to hide salacious allegations from voters to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
The former president pleaded not guilty and denied all wrongdoing, including ever having had an sexual encounter with Daniels. After the verdict was read, Trump railed against the judge, and called the trial “rigged [and] disgraceful.”
After a jury found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts in his New York criminal trial, Republicans quickly came to their presumptive presidential nominee’s defense.
One of the first reactions came from Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, one of Trump’s staunchest allies in Washington, who called it “a travesty of justice.”
“The Manhattan kangaroo court shows what happens when our justice system is weaponized by partisan prosecutors in front of a biased judge with an unfair process, designed to keep President Trump off the campaign trail and avoid bringing attention to President Biden’s failing radical policies,” Jordan said in a statement. “Americans see through Democrats’ lawfare tactics and know President Trump will be vindicated on appeal.”
Many congressional Republicans offered a similar response, including Speaker Mike Johnson.
“Today is a shameful day in American history,” Johnson said. “Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges, predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon. This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one.”
Johnson, who traveled to Manhattan earlier this month to show his support for Trump at the courthouse, continued to try to paint the proceeding as biased.
“The weaponization of our justice system has been a hallmark of the Biden Administration, and the decision today is further evidence that Democrats will stop at nothing to silence dissent and crush their political opponents,” Johnson said. “The American people see this as lawfare, and they know it is wrong — and dangerous. President Trump will rightfully appeal this absurd verdict — and he WILL WIN!”
New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, the No. 3 Republican in the House, also claimed the trial outcome is a sign of a “corrupt and rigged” justice system.
“I fully support President Trump appealing this decision and look forward to the New York Court of Appeals delivering justice and overturning this verdict,” she said. “The facts are clear: this was a zombie case brought forward by Joe Biden’s allies in a desperate attempt to save Biden’s failing campaign and the verdict hinged on the testimony of a convicted felon who was disbarred for lying.”
One of the first Democratic responses came from Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who wrote, “Everyone is entitled to due process, and Donald Trump had his.”
“This guilty verdict and the many ongoing criminal cases against Trump make it clear to the world: in the United States, no one is above the law,” Van Hollen added.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Former President Donald Trump called the hush money trial “rigged” while speaking outside the courthouse Thursday just moments after learning he was found guilty on 34 counts.
“This was a disgrace,” Trump told reporters. “This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. It’s a rigged trial, a disgrace.”
Referencing his failed petition to move the trial out of Manhattan, Trump continued, “They wouldn’t give us a venue change,” adding, “We were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area.”
Last week, a panel of New York State appellate judges denied Trump’s appeal to move his criminal trial, which had been underway for six weeks, out of Manhattan to another New York county.
Trump referenced the upcoming presidential election in November, calling that the “real verdict.”
“The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5 by the people, and they know what happened here, and everybody knows what happened here,” Trump said, referring to Election Day.
Trump continued to maintain his innocence, saying, “We didn’t do a thing wrong. I’m a very innocent man — it’s OK,” he said, adding, “I’m fighting for our country, I’m fighting for our constitution. Our whole country is being rigged right now.”
Taking aim at his election rival, Trump said, “This was done by the Biden administration in order to wound, to hurt an opponent — a political opponent.”
White House counsel’s office spokesperson Ian Sams reacted with a brief statement on the Trump verdict, saying they “respect the rule of law” and “have no additional comment.”
Trump continued his remarks, addressing the state of the nation and calling out immigration and prison reform, saying, “We don’t have the same country anymore — we have a divided mess. We’re a nation in decline, serious decline, millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now from prisons and from mental institutions, terrorists, and they’re taking over our country.”
Trump concluded his statement outside the courthouse, saying, “This is long from over, thank you very much.”
Trump was on trial in New York City, where he was convicted on all 34 felony charges related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
It marks the first time in history that a former U.S. president has been tried on criminal charges.
Former President Donald Trump was found guilty by a Manhattan jury Thursday on all 34 counts in the criminal case related to an alleged hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
It took the jury 10 hours to come to their decision.
Trump is the first president to be indicted and convicted on criminal charges after Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office charged him with 34 counts of falsifying business records, alleging he hid salacious information from voters to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
The former president pleaded not guilty and denied all wrongdoing. After the verdict was read, Trump railed against the judge, and called the trial “rigged [and] disgraceful.”
“The real verdict is going to be November 5, by the people, and they know what happened here and everybody knows what happened here,” Trump said to hallway cameras after angrily exiting the courtroom following his conviction.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention.
The verdict caps a yearslong legal saga that began not too long after Trump declared presidential run in 2015.
The ‘catch and kill’ deal that started it all
In August 2015, National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified that he met with Donald Trump and Michael Cohen in Trump Tower to discuss how his “magazines could do to help the campaign.”
Pecker told jurors that he agreed to serve as the “eyes and ears” of Trump’s presidential campaign by identifying negative stories about Trump related to women.
“The entire purpose of this meeting at Trump Tower was…to manipulate and defraud the voters, to pull the wool over their eyes in a coordinated fashion,” Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors during his closing statement about the alleged scheme.
To honor his agreement, Pecker testified that his company caught and killed two stories to help the campaign – paying $30,000 to a former Trump property doorman who falsely alleged that Trump had a child out of wedlock and $150,000 to Karen McDougal, who alleged a months-long affair with Trump, – an alleged affair the former president has long denied.
In October 2016, Pecker also flagged to Michael Cohen that adult film actress Stormy Daniels was shopping a story of her 2006 alleged sexual encounter with Trump, though Pecker declined to buy the story himself.
Michael Cohen testified that he brought the story directly to Trump – speaking with the then-Republican nominee nearly two dozen times in the month ahead of the election – and ultimately paid for the story out of his own pocket on Trump’s orders.
Trump later reimbursed Cohen in 2017 by making a series of $35,000 payments, labeled in business records as legal expenses pursuant to a retainer agreement.
Prosecutors alleged that Trump’s description of the payments disguised their true purpose so voters would never learn about the hush-money payment, though a 2018 Wall Street Journal report uncovered the payment.
“Of course, we will never know if this effort to hoodwink the American voter made the difference in the 2016 election, but that’s not something we have to prove,” Steinglass said. “The point is that the reimbursement to Cohen was cloaked in false business records to hide the conspiracy.”
A long road to indictment
When Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III was conducting his investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, his office referred Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen to federal prosecutors in New York’s Southern District.
It remains unclear what exactly prompted the referral, but by April 2018, the FBI had raided Cohen’s office, hotel room, and home. In August of that year, Cohen pleaded guilty to skirting campaign rules when he made payments to Daniels and McDougal.
The plea deal was seen as a major shock as Cohen has dutifully stood by Trump for years through numerous scandals and legal quandaries.
Trump himself was referenced in Cohen’s indictment as “Individual-1” who directed him to make the payments, but federal prosecutors opted to not charge Trump due to a longstanding guidance against indicting sitting presidents.
When Trump left office, prosecutors never reopened their investigation or brought charges against the former president. Next door from the federal prosecutors, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. – who had begun investigating Trump’s hush money payments in 2018 – opted to continue the investigation.
By 2021, Vance authorized his prosecutors to pursue a criminal indictment based on Trump’s exaggeration of his net worth. That investigation was ongoing when Vance left office, leaving the decision to his successor Alvin Bragg.
Bragg, however, determined that the case “wasn’t ready for takeoff,” prompting the resignation of two top prosecutors.
At the time, the case appeared dead in the water, but Bragg shook up his legal team and found success in the prosecution of the Trump Organization for a 15-year tax fraud scheme and a guilty plea from Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. By 2023, a new case theory centered on the testimony of Michael Cohen emerged, and prosecutors successfully convinced a grand jury to indict the former president.
In April 2023, Trump became the first current or former president to be criminally indicted. He pleaded not guilty to 34 felony charges of falsifying business records stemming from his hush payment to Daniels.
The New York indictment became the first of four criminal cases against the former president. The other cases relate to his alleged conduct during the 2020 election and how he dealt with classified documents. He has pleaded not guilty in those cases and denies the charges.
Trump’s past takes center stage
After months of back and forth, including multiple attempts by Trump’s attorneys to have the case dismissed or delay the case, the trial began on April 15.
Prosecutors called 20 witnesses – including some of Trump’s closest advisors and deputies – to try to prove their case against the former president.
Prosecutors first called Pecker, who went into detail about the catch-and-kill agreement he made with Trump and Cohen during and after the 2016 campaign.
The former publisher also described how after securing the presidency, Trump kept tabs on the women he and Cohen had paid off.
Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime assistant, testified that she recalled seeing Daniels in the reception of the executive floor of Trump Tower.
Daniels would eventually take the stand, coming face to face with the former president for the first time in over a decade, and recounted their alleged sexual encounter, which Trump continues to deny.
“I told very few people that we had actually had sex because I felt ashamed that I didn’t stop it, that I didn’t say no,” Daniels told jurors.
Trump attorney Susan Necheles got into a heated cross-examination with Daniels questioning the validity of her claims and arguing she was making it up to extort money from Trump.
“You have a lot of experience of making phony stories about sex appear to be real?” Necheles asked.
“The sex in the films is very real, just like what happened to me in that room,” she said on the stand.
Things got even more heated when prosecutors concluded their their case by calling Cohen himself.
Cohen contended that Trump ordered him to “just do it,” referring to the payoff during the end of the campaign, as word of the alleged affair with Daniels would have been “catastrophic.”
“He stated to me that he had spoken to some friends, some individuals, very smart people. It’s $130,000. Just pay it,” Cohen testified.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche launched an attack on Cohen’s credibility noting his previous perjury convictions and lies to the press.
Specifically, he accused Cohen of lying about a phone call he said he had with Donald Trump on Oct. 24, 2016, showing phone records that indicated Cohen called Trump’s bodyguard.
Defense lawyers presented evidence that Cohen actually made the call to complain to Trump’s bodyguard about a teenage prank caller.
Cohen, who remained calm during his time on the stand, stood by his testimony and said the bodyguard gave the phone to Trump.
Trump chose not to take the stand in his own defense, however, he was very vocal as the trial unfolded.
Drama inside and outside the court
Ever since the indictment was handed down to him, Trump repeatedly lashed out against key players in the case – including Cohen, Daniels, Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over the case – to the press during rallies and on social media.
Trump’s frequent attacks ultimately prompted the Merchan to issue a limited gag order prohibiting Trump from making public comments about the witnesses, jury, and family of Bragg or Merchan.
During the trial, Merchan found Trump in criminal contempt ten times for Trump’s repeated violations of the gag order, threatening to imprison the former president for future violations.
Cohen would also slam Trump on social media and his podcast before and during the trial despite being a key witness set to take the stand.
Trump’s defense used Cohen’s comments and social media posts during their cross-examination to argue that he was seeking payback against Trump.
Trump’s allies show up for support
The police prepared for huge throngs of Trump’s supporters to rally outside the Manhattan courthouse during the trial, going as far as to set up a barricaded section, but the crowds were small.
Among the Trump supporters who did travel to New York to back him and criticize the investigation were House Speaker Mike Johnson, Sen. Tommy Tuberville and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.
Johnson said in a statement after the verdict that Thursday was a “shameful day in American history.”
“This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one,” he said in a statement. “President Trump will rightfully appeal this absurd verdict—and he WILL WIN!”
What’s next
This is not the end of Trump’s legal challenges.
The former president was indicted twice by Special Counsel Jack Smith on federal charges related to Trump’s his alleged interference with the 2020 election and alleged keeping of classified government documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Trump is also facing state charges in Fulton County, Georgia, over his alleged interference with the 2020 election.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to those charges and denied all wrongdoing.
ABC News’ Aaron Katersky, Rachel Scott, Kelsey Walsh and John Santucci contributed to this report.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
