After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty of all 34 felony counts for falsifying business records, he immediately rejected the verdict and assailed judges and the criminal justice system.
Loyalists in the conservative news media and Congress were quick to follow suit, spouting off-the-cuff claims that he had been the victim of a politically motivated sham trial.
The display of unity reflects the extent to which Mr Trump is holding onto his base.
The former president and his supporters have appointed the judge presiding over the case, undermining the justice system and undermining the circumstances of the charges against him and his subsequent convictions.
Here’s a reality check on some of their claims.
What is being said
“We have conflicted judges, very conflicted. There is no more conflicted judge.”
– Mr. Trump at a press conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan
This is exaggerated. For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his allies have argued that Judge Juan M. Merchan should not preside over the case because of his daughter’s line of work. Loren Merchan, the daughter, is president of a digital campaign strategy agency that has done work for many prominent Democrats, including Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign.
Experts on judicial ethics said Ms. Merchan’s work was not enough for her to resign. When Mr. Trump’s legal team asked to resign because of his daughter, Justice Merchan sought advice from the New York State Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, which said there was no conflict of interest.
The committee may disagree with Mr. Trump’s characterization of Justice Merchan as the most conflicted judge, as it has recommended judges be removed or recused in many cases due to conflicts of interest.
What is being said
“Just so you know this is all done by Biden and his people.”
– Mr. Trump at a news conference on Friday
This has no evidence. So far, Mr. Trump has not provided evidence that President Biden personally directed the quiet money case. The case was brought by Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney. Mr. Bragg is a local prosecutor, meaning Mr. Biden or the administration has no control over Mr. Bragg’s office or case. In addition, the investigation into the payments began in 2018, before Mr. Biden took office and under Mr. Bragg’s predecessor.
What is being said
“We are not allowed to use election experts under any circumstances.”
– Mr. Trump at a news conference on Friday
False. Justice Merchan did not bar the election expert in question – Bradley A. Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission – from testifying, but limited what he could say. In the end, Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not call Mr. Smith.
In a pretrial motion, Justice Merchan ordered that Mr. Smith could testify publicly about the Federal Election Commission and define terms related to the case, such as “campaign contributions.” During the proceedings in May, Justice Merchan noted that allowing Mr. Smith to testify would invite testimony from election experts chosen by prosecutors, leading to a “battle of the experts.”
Mr. Smith said on social media that Mr. Trump’s lawyer had decided not to call, but criticized Justice Merchan.
What is being said
“I should be in prison for 187 years.”
— Mr. Trump at a news conference on Friday
This has no evidence. It is not clear how Mr. Trump arrived at that figure. The exact punishment he faces, and whether it includes jail time, will be determined by Justice Merchan at his sentencing on July 11.
Each of the 34 counts carries a maximum prison sentence of four years, or a total of 136 years. But Mr. Trump will likely exercise the sentence concurrently for a maximum of four years in total, if he will be imprisoned at all. It is possible that Justice Merchan could order probation, without prison time.
An analysis of similar cases — examining about 10,000 cases of falsification of business records, including 400 brought by the Manhattan district attorney, since 2015 — found that about one in 10 resulted in jail time. However, these cases usually require additional fees.
What is being said
“Everybody said it was pointless, including Bragg — until I ran into office and they looked at the polls, I was leading the Republicans, I was leading the Democrats, I was leading everybody and all of a sudden they came back.
– Mr. Trump at a news conference on Friday
False. Mr. Trump has repeatedly and falsely pointed to the timing of the case as evidence of an election-related scheme.
The investigation into Mr. Trump’s finances, including the payments, began in 2018 under Mr. Bragg. It hit many roadblocks along the way, and was described by one former prosecutor as a “zombie” case, dying and reviving again and again. The prosecutor resigned in February 2022 after Mr. Bragg decided not to pursue charges against Mr. Trump, specifically for exaggerating the value of his assets.
But The New York Times reported that Mr. Bragg continued to pursue a monetary perspective and was confident about the case in the summer of 2022. That spring, Mr. Bragg also publicly confirmed that the investigation into the former president was active. Mr. Trump announced his decision to run for re-election in November 2022. Mr. Bragg presided over a grand jury in January 2023 and Mr. Trump was indicted in March 2023.
What is being said
“This is a place where Donald Trump got 5 percent of the vote. There was no jury of his friends, it was a jury of his enemies. Clearly, it was organized. And he found a place where he could not win. I mean, there was no chance for him to win fair jury and he refused to change venue.There is a reason that the Florida court did not come out, because he was afraid that he would be acquitted.
– Representative Nick Langworthy, Republican of New York, in an interview on Fox Business Network on Friday
False. Mr Trump and his allies have long complained about the overwhelming presence of Democrats in Manhattan and insist they cannot get a fair trial there. (Mr. Trump received 12 percent of the vote in New York County, not 5 percent, in the 2020 presidential election.)
Indeed Mr. Trump’s team tried, and failed, to move the case to federal court in Manhattan where potential jurors would come from other counties in New York, including those with more conservative voters.
But Mr. Trump’s defense also took part in jury selection, eliminating several prospective jurors. The 12 chosen included some who did not have strong opinions about him, one who said he appreciated Mr Trump’s honesty and another who said the former president had done some good for the country and received news from Truth Social, Mr Trump’s social media. platform. (It is also worth noting that some allies of Mr. Trump have predicted a hung jury, pinning their hopes on one particular juror who seems to nod along with the defense at times and make eye contact with Mr. Trump.)
In Florida, Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, still has not decided when the trial in the secret documents case will begin. And it was actually Mr. Trump’s lawyer who sought the delay. Prosecutors, on the other hand, tried to speed up the case.
What is being said
“It doesn’t matter if Judge Merchan, you know, tells the jurors that they don’t have to agree. I’m like, really? Well, I beg to differ.”
– Sean Hannity, conservative news personality, on his radio show on Thursday
False. This misinterpretation of Justice Merchan’s jury instructions has been voiced by Mr. Trump and some of his allies. In fact, Justice Merchan explained to jurors that falsifying business records — the charge Mr. Trump faces — is only a crime if it is done to conceal or aid another crime. The other crime, according to prosecutors, is a state election law known as Section 17-152, which prohibits helping or preventing the election of a candidate “by any unlawful means.”
The jury “must unanimously conclude” that Mr. Trump violated the state’s election laws, Justice Merchan said, but “need not agree on what illegal means.”
What is being said
“The gag order, in its entirety, is — in my view — an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.”
– Mike Johnson, speaker of the House, in an interview on Friday on Fox News
This requires context. Mr. Johnson expressed his opinion, but it should be noted that the appeals court has rejected his opinion. Justice Merchan imposed a gag order against Mr. Trump, and an appeals court upheld the order, rejecting Mr. Trump’s argument that it violated his First Amendment rights.
According to the order, Mr. Trump cannot make statements about witnesses about his participation in investigations and court proceedings; about prosecutors, court staff members or their families if the comments are intended to interfere with the case; or statement about the jury.
In his ruling approving the gag order, Justice Merchan wrote that Mr. Trump’s statements “go far beyond self-defense” against attacks and are instead “threatening, inflammatory, derogatory,” and aimed at private individuals as well as public figures.
The appeals court found that Justice Merchan had reason to believe that Mr. Trump’s statements posed a threat.
What is being said
“We don’t know what that crime is yet, because they introduced a new crime in the jury instructions, oh, and in addition to federal election meddling that was never prosecuted, you can also bind it as a felony — you can also turn it into a felony by binding some tax law in New York, who was never mentioned in the entire trial.
– Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, in an interview on Friday on Fox News
False. Falsifying business records is usually a misdemeanor offense, but prosecutors can bring felony charges if they believe bookkeeping fraud has been done to hide another crime, although they don’t have to prove that a crime has been committed. While Mr. Trump’s allies and some legal scholars also questioned the rationale of this law, Mr. Rubio was simply wrong that the prosectors “never” went through the entire trial.
In the indictment, announced in April 2023, prosecutors repeatedly wrote that Mr. Trump falsified business records “with the intent to defraud and the intent to commit a crime and to aid and conceal the commission.” In a statement of facts, prosecutors said the other crimes were violating election laws and defrauding tax authorities. Prosecutors and Justice Merchan also mentioned other crimes during the court proceedings.