Much has been bandied about with the New York hush money trial of ex President Donald Trump. I don't have great insights to add, but I do have a couple of thoughts that have relevance.
The first is about the venue. Many have decried the venue saying that Trump couldn't possibly get a fair trial in New York City most of which is heavily Democratic. My reply is simple. Trump chose to live in New York City. Trump chose to base the company that he chose to use for the payoffs to Cohen in New York City. His actions dictated the venue. Nothing more, nothing less. Crying about the venue after you've committed the crimes and gotten caught is pointless.
If you're going to commit murder and don't want the death penalty, don't commit murder in a jurisdiction that has the death penalty as an option. That's an extreme example, I'll agree. But the principle holds true. If you're going to commit a crime, don't pick a place likely to convict you of it.
Second, consider this. The business operations of Donald Trump were laid bare, both in his own writings - whether ghostwritten or not - and in the testimony of his lawyer Cohen. Cohen testified of how great it was that he got the people owed money for Trump University to take 20 cents on the dollar for what they were owed. Not paying his bills at all or in full is endemic with Trump. There are currently news reports that many current campaign bills are going unpaid, particularly for law enforcement. Google it yourself.
How many companies in New York were stiffed by Trump? Alvin Bragg's desire to go after Trump or to campaign on that doesn't have to have anything to do with politics or campaigns. It is entirely justifiable just from his business practices. Trump University and its aliases were part of the Trump Organization, headquartered in NYC. Trump Entertainment Resorts held several properties in New Jersey and other places. It declared bankruptcy three times and eventually it and all its properties were sold and closed. How many individuals and New York businesses did those actions affect? He was also found guilty in other cases, both personal and financial. He isn't lily white to start with.
I'd like you to think about a real life and a hypothetical question. Al Capone was a pretty notorious gangster. He's reported to have been involved in bootlegging, gambling, prostitution, bribery and intimidation of officials, and many murders, including, most likely, the St. Valentine's day massacre. But the government couldn't get him prosecuted on any of that because he isolated himself from the actual crime and the police and judicial system was rumored completely under his control by payoffs and bribes. Does the corruption of the judicial system protecting an individual ring any bells? Instead, they got him for tax evasion. And to be clear, the actual prosecution and appeals were just as sketchy as the hush money trial. Was going after Capone for tax evasion a good thing?
For a second example, consider notorious drug producers or distributors today, or slavers, pornographers, or any other reprehensible lot you'd like to pick. They shield themselves very well, particularly in their home countries where they have also bought allegiance from the police and judiciary. If the United States or a State in the United States had an opportunity to put them behind bars for some seemingly trivial or trumped up charge, should they proceed or at least make the attempt? Trumped up charge has a whole new meaning now doesn't it.
The reality is this. Whatever you think of the charges, Donald Trump as a businessman hurt a great many people, and is still doing so if the news reports are right. He's promising to continue that process with a revenge tour. Twelve jurors heard the evidence presented, with almost nothing said from the defense, and unanimously voted guilty. You may not agree with the charges brought. You may not like Bragg. But the jury was unanimous in its verdict on all counts. I do realize that the nature of the counts really meant it would be unanimous on all or cleared on all, but it was still a unanimous verdict by twelve men and women chosen at random and with the same number of strikes from the defense and prosecution. I don't know what went on in the minds of the jurors. But at the end, they were at peace with voting guilty. I'm sure issues of character and history subconsciously weighed on their minds, whether they should have or not. But I'm also sure that they knew the precedent of convicting a former President which would have given them pause. Still, they voted guilty.
As to election interference being the item that tied it to a felony, I'd say this. Although today, it seems incredible that the supposed Christian voting block would ever shrink from backing their leader, regardless of how bad he appears to be and how sad that is, that wasn't the belief in 2016. Trump was certainly not sure that the revelations that he paid Cohen to have suppressed would not have driven away the Christians from voting for him in the election. That the payments to reimburse Cohen weren't recorded till after the election is just smoke and mirrors by the pro Trump camp. The interference was done before the election. The electoral count was 304 to 227 for Clinton. The states won were heavily midwest and southern Bible belt states. He lost the popular vote by almost 3,000,000 votes. Don't discount the effect his adulterous relations while his wife was pregnant could have cast on the outcome of that election.