Donald Trump has become the first former US president to be criminally convicted – but what could the historic verdict mean for his ongoing election campaign?
The former president covered up a $130,000 (£102,000) payment to porn star Stormy Daniels as part of a “hush money” scheme to bury stories he thought might hurt his presidential campaign in 2016.
The case was the first of four criminal cases against Trump to go to trial, and marked the first time a former president has faced criminal charges.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:39
Trump: ‘This is a rigged trial’
It is unlikely the remaining three cases will go to trial before the November election.
With the hush money verdict in, Sky News takes a look at what could happen to Trump’s quest for reelection now he’s been convicted.
Image: Pic: Reuters
Can Trump still run for president?
Yes. The US Constitution sets out three main requirements for being eligible to become president – and none of them reference being a convicted criminal.
Advertisement
Candidates must have been born in the US, be over 35, and have lived in the US for at least 14 years.
“Nothing prevents him from running for president and being elected, even if he is in jail at the time of the election,” Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Centre, told the LA Times.
That’s despite people with a felony conviction – a crime that can be punished by a year or more in prison – not being allowed to vote in some states.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:56
What happens next for Donald Trump?
But what if he were to be elected while in prison?
This is a little more complicated, firstly because it’s not clear if Trump will be sent to prison following the guilty verdict.
The convictions are class E felonies in New York, the lowest tier in the state, with each carrying a maximum sentence of four years.
In choosing the sentence, the judge will have to take into account Trump’s age – he’s now 77– his lack of previous criminal convictions, and the fact that the case involves a non-violent crime.
Even if the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, opts for a custodial sentence, it’s likely Trump will appeal the guilty verdict – and expect to be on bail until that hearing.
Image: Stormy Daniels in Manhattan in 2018. Pic: AP
That process could go all the way to the Court of Appeals, and, importantly for Trump, could drag on for months – possibly even past November’s election.
If Trump were to be elected while serving time, the situation becomes more complicated still, with even constitutional experts unsure.
“It’s just guessing,” Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times earlier this year.
“We’re so far removed from anything that’s ever happened.”
Image: A court sketch of Justice Juan Merchan. Pic: Reuters
Could power transfer to the vice president?
In theory, experts say, there is nothing to stop Trump from taking office, even if he were to be behind bars.
There is a provision – the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution – which provides a process to transfer authority to the vice president if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.
However, that would require the approval of the vice president and members of Trump’s cabinet – who will have been hand-picked by him and will no doubt be loyalists.
It is more likely, experts say, that Trump would look to sue for his release or seek a pardon to allow him to govern.
Image: Pic: Reuters
How will the guilty verdict impact the election?
Opinion polls carried out prior to Thursday’s verdict suggested it could pose a significant political danger for Trump.
In an April poll, one in four Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he was found guilty in a criminal trial.
In the same survey, 60% of independents said they would not vote for Trump if he was convicted of a crime.
What do the experts say about its potential impact?
Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, said he doubted a quarter of Republicans would actually shun Trump – but he said even a small number being turned off by a guilty verdict could help Joe Biden in a close election.
He said the nature of the New York case, which was brought by a Democratic prosecutor and relies on untested legal strategies, would help Trump and fellow Republicans frame a guilty verdict as a political hit job.
“If I were trying to design a court case that would be easy for Republicans to dismiss as a partisan witch hunt, I would design exactly the case that’s being brought in New York,” he said.
Image: Donald Trump speaks to the media during his trial. Pic: Reuters
Republican consultant Tricia McLaughlin said she thought a guilty verdict would have a psychological impact on Trump because he hates losing.
It would also likely mean financial resources are diverted to legal bills because he would almost certainly appeal, she added.
Analyst Bill Galston said he didn’t expect a guilty verdict would have a significant impact on the presidential race.
“In the end, this amounts to lying about sex. I think the view probably of the majority of Americans is that everybody lies about sex,” said Mr Galston, who has worked on Democratic presidential campaigns.
Marjorie Taylor Greene – a one-time MAGA ally who has turned into a fierce critic of Donald Trump – has unexpectedly announced she is resigning from Congress.
Her relationship with the president has deteriorated in recent months, and she had vocally campaigned for the justice department to release all of its files concerning the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Mr Trump has been fiercely critical about Ms Greene on Truth Social – describing her as a “lunatic”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:54
‘MAGA meltdown going on because of Epstein’
In a statement posted on X, she wrote: “Standing up for American women who were raped at 14, trafficked and used by rich powerful men, should not result in me being called a traitor and threatened by the President of the United States, whom I fought for.”
Ms Greene went on to confirm her last day in office will be on January 5.
The hard-right Republican was one of the most aggressive spokespeople for the Make America Great Again movement – and had become infamous for her combative encounters with journalists, including Sky’s Martha Kelner.
On social media, she had made posts advocating violence against Democrat opponents – and casting doubt on the 9/11 terror attacks and the school mass shootings at Parkland and Sandy Hook.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:05
March: Greene clashes with Sky correspondent
The bond between Ms Greene and Mr Trump started to break down after she lambasted his foreign policy – describing it as “America Last”.
Last week, the president had announced that he was withdrawing his support and endorsement for the 51-year-old, who had been expected to run for re-election in Georgia’s 14th congressional district next November.
Her statement added: “I have too much self-respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the president we all fought for, only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:35
‘Shame on everyone that protected Epstein’
A few days ago, Ms Greene had warned the breakdown in relations with the White House had led to her construction company receiving a pipe bomb threat.
She had written on X: “President Trump’s unwarranted and vicious attacks against me were a dog whistle to dangerous radicals that could lead to serious attacks on me and my family.”
Ms Greene went on to warn his inflammatory rhetoric “puts blood in the water and creates a feeding frenzy that could ultimately lead to a harmful or even deadly outcome”.
A Grammy-winning rapper who “betrayed his country for money” has been sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, who was part of 1990s hip-hop group The Fugees, was convicted of illegally funnelling millions of dollars in foreign contributions to Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012.
The Justice Department had accused the 53-year-old of accepting $120m (£92m) from Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho, who wanted to gain political influence in the US.
Image: The Fugees after winning Grammys in 1997. Pic: Reuters
Prosecutors said Michel “lied unapologetically and unrelentingly to carry out his actions” – and sought to deceive the White House, senior politicians and the FBI for almost a decade.
In 2018, it is claimed he urged the Trump administration and the justice department to drop embezzlement investigations against Low.
The Oscar-winning actor said the businessman’s funding and legitimacy had been carefully vetted before they entered a partnership.
Image: Low Taek Jho. AP file pic
Prosecutors had been seeking a life sentence to “reflect the breadth and depth of Michel’s crimes, his indifference to the risks to his country, and the magnitude of his greed”.
However, the rapper’s lawyer Peter Zeidenberg has argued that the 14-year term is “completely disproportionate to the offence” – and is vowing to appeal.
Last year, a judge rejected Michel’s request for a new trial after claiming that one of his lawyers had used AI during closing arguments.
Image: Wyclef Jean, Lauryn Hill and Pras Michel formed The Fugees in the 1990s
Low Taek Jho has been accused of having a central role in the 1MDB scandal, amid claims billions of dollars were stolen from a Malaysian state fund.
The 44-year-old is a fugitive but has maintained his innocence, with his lawyers writing: “Low’s motivation for giving Michel money to donate was not so that he could achieve some policy objective.
“Instead, Low simply wanted to obtain a photograph with himself and then President Obama.”
Michel, who was born in Brooklyn, was a founding member of The Fugees with childhood friends Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean – selling tens of millions of records.
The Donald Trump peace plan is nothing of the sort. It takes Russian demands and presents them as peace proposals, in what is effectively for Ukraine a surrender ultimatum.
If accepted, it would reward armed aggression. The principle, sacrosanct since the Second World War, for obvious and very good reasons, that even de facto borders cannot be changed by force, will have been trampled on at the behest of the leader of the free world.
The Kremlin will have imposed terms via negotiators on a country it has violated, and whose people its troops have butchered, massacred and raped. It is without doubt the biggest crisis in Trans-Atlantic relations since the war began, if not since the inception of NATO.
The question now is: are Europe’s leaders up to meeting the daunting challenges that will follow. On past form, we cannot be sure.
Image: Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. Pic: Sputnik/Gavriil Grigorov via Reuters
The plan proposes the following:
• Land seized by Vladimir Putin’s unwarranted and unprovoked invasion would be ceded by Kyiv.
• Territory his forces have fought but failed to take with colossal loss of life will be thrown into the bargain for good measure.
• Ukraine will be barred from NATO, from having long-range weapons, from hosting foreign troops, from allowing foreign diplomatic planes to land, and its military neutered, reduced in size by more than half.
Image: Donald Trump meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August, File pic: Reuters
And most worryingly for Western leaders, the plan proposes NATO and Russia negotiate with America acting as mediator.
Lest we forget, America is meant to be the strongest partner in NATO, not an outside arbitrator. In one clause, Mr Trump’s lack of commitment to the Western alliance is laid bare in chilling clarity.
And even for all that, the plan will not bring peace. Mr Putin has made it abundantly clear he wants all of Ukraine.
He has a proven track record of retiring, rallying his forces, then returning for more. Reward a bully as they say, and he will only come back for more. Why wouldn’t he, if he is handed the fortress cities of Donetsk and a clear run over open tank country to Kyiv in a few years?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:29
US draft Russia peace plan
Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, Europe has tried to keep the maverick president onside when his true sympathies have repeatedly reverted to Moscow.
It has been a demeaning and sycophantic spectacle, NATO’s secretary general stooping even to calling the US president ‘Daddy’. And it hasn’t worked. It may have made matters worse.
Image: A choir sing in front of an apartment building destroyed in a Russian missile strike in Ternopil, Ukraine. Pic: Reuters
The parade of world leaders trooping through Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, lavishing praise on his Gaza ceasefire plan, only encouraged him to believe he is capable of solving the world’s most complex conflicts with the minimum of effort.
The Gaza plan is mired in deepening difficulty, and it never came near addressing the underlying causes of the war.
Most importantly, principles the West has held inviolable for eight decades cannot be torn up for the sake of a quick and uncertain peace.
With a partner as unreliable, the challenge to Europe cannot be clearer.
In the words of one former Baltic foreign minister: “There is a glaringly obvious message for Europe in the 28-point plan: This is the end of the end.
“We have been told repeatedly and unambiguously that Ukraine’s security, and therefore Europe’s security, will be Europe’s responsibility. And now it is. Entirely.”
If Europe does not step up to the plate and guarantee Ukraine’s security in the face of this American betrayal, we could all pay the consequences.