Podcasts > The Ben Shapiro Show > Trump CONVICTED Of 34 Felonies. Pray For The Republic.

Trump CONVICTED Of 34 Felonies. Pray For The Republic.

By Ben Shapiro

In this episode of The Ben Shapiro Show, Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly analyze the legal case against Donald Trump. They scrutinize the prosecution's questionable legal theory around the hush money payments classified as illegal campaign contributions. Shapiro alleges the charges stem from political motives, citing Manhattan DA Bragg's campaign promises to prosecute Trump and potential coordination between the prosecution and Biden administration.

The conversation examines how a conviction, whether resulting in jail time or probation restrictions, could impact Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. Shapiro and Kelly ponder potential consequences, speculating that a conviction could spark outrage and even boost Trump's support among some voters. While presenting perspectives on both sides, the episode maintains a critical eye on the legal and political factors surrounding the high-stakes case.

Listen to the original

Trump CONVICTED Of 34 Felonies. Pray For The Republic.

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 31, 2024 episode of the The Ben Shapiro Show

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Trump CONVICTED Of 34 Felonies. Pray For The Republic.

1-Page Summary

According to Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly, the charges against Trump are based on a questionable legal theory. Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies related to hush money payments claimed to be illegal campaign contributions. However, the prosecution lacked jurisdiction to charge federal election violations. Kelly notes Bradley Smith's view that such payments should be evaluated as customary legal practices.

The judge allowed the prosecution to imply Trump's guilt by introducing Michael Cohen's guilty plea, despite Trump never being charged with federal crimes. Shapiro criticizes the prosecution's unusual enforcement approach.

Political Motivations Behind the Prosecution

Targeting Trump

Shapiro cites Manhattan DA Bragg's campaign promises to prosecute Trump as evidence of political motivation. He questions Matthew Colangelo's move from Biden's DOJ to Bragg's office before charges emerged, suggesting potential coordination between the prosecution and Biden administration.

Shapiro and Kelly discuss whether the case was influenced by Biden's presidency to affect Trump's candidacy. They note Trump's opponents celebrating the prosecution, implying partisanship over impartial justice.

Potential Consequences of Conviction

Impact on 2024 Election

Shapiro discusses how Trump's lack of remorse could lead to harsher sentencing. Kelly suggests jailing Trump could spark outrage, mobilize Republicans, and boost his chances.

Even without jail, Shapiro notes probation restrictions like travel limits could disrupt Trump's campaign. However, an NPR/PBS poll found most said a conviction wouldn't change their Trump vote, and some would be more likely to support him.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The legal theory in question involves the interpretation of hush money payments made by Donald Trump as potential illegal campaign contributions. Critics argue that these payments should be viewed as customary legal practices rather than violations of federal election laws. The debate centers on whether these payments were intended to influence the election outcome, which is a key factor in determining their legality.
  • The lack of jurisdiction for federal election violations in the case against Donald Trump means that the prosecution may not have had the legal authority to charge Trump specifically for breaking federal campaign finance laws. This could raise questions about the legal basis for the charges related to hush money payments and their classification as illegal campaign contributions.
  • Introducing Michael Cohen's guilty plea in the case against Trump allowed the prosecution to suggest Trump's involvement in the alleged illegal activities without directly charging him with federal crimes. This tactic aimed to establish a connection between Trump and the illegal campaign contributions related to hush money payments. Cohen's guilty plea served as circumstantial evidence to imply Trump's guilt in the absence of direct charges against him.
  • Manhattan DA Bragg's campaign promises referred to the pledges or commitments he made during his election campaign to the position of District Attorney of Manhattan. These promises could include specific plans or priorities related to law enforcement, prosecution strategies, or policy changes within the jurisdiction of the Manhattan District Attorney's office. The mention of Bragg's campaign promises in the context of the text suggests that his stated intentions may have influenced or been relevant to the decisions or actions taken regarding the case against Donald Trump.
  • Matthew Colangelo's move from Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) to Bragg's office suggests a potential connection between the prosecution of Trump and the Biden administration. This transition raises questions about the influence or coordination between the two entities in the legal proceedings against Trump.
  • The mention of potential coordination between the prosecution and the Biden administration suggests a concern that there may have been collaboration or communication between the legal team pursuing charges against Donald Trump and officials within the Biden administration. This raises questions about the impartiality and independence of the legal process, as political motivations could influence the handling of the case. The transition of personnel from the Department of Justice under President Biden to the Manhattan District Attorney's office could imply a connection that might impact the objectivity of the legal proceedings. Such coordination, if proven, could raise concerns about the fairness and neutrality of the legal actions taken against Trump.
  • Trump's lack of remorse could impact his sentencing by potentially leading to a harsher punishment. In legal proceedings, showing remorse or accepting responsibility for one's actions can sometimes mitigate the severity of the sentence imposed by the court. If a defendant displays no remorse, it may be viewed unfavorably by the judge and could influence the sentencing decision. This lack of contrition could be a factor in determining the consequences Trump faces if convicted in this case.
  • Probation restrictions are court-ordered conditions imposed on an individual instead of serving time in jail. These restrictions can include limitations on travel, association with certain individuals, or engaging in specific activities. In the context of Trump's campaign, probation restrictions like travel limits could disrupt his ability to freely move around for campaign events and engagements, potentially impacting his campaign strategy and outreach efforts.
  • The NPR/PBS poll mentioned in the text found that most respondents said a conviction wouldn't change their vote for Trump, and some might even be more inclined to support him. This implies that Trump's base remains loyal despite legal challenges, potentially indicating a solidified support base for him in the 2024 election.

Counterarguments

  • The legal theory behind the charges may not be as questionable as suggested; legal experts can and do disagree on the interpretation of campaign finance laws.
  • The jurisdiction to charge federal election violations could be a matter of legal interpretation and precedent, which the prosecution may argue they have correctly applied.
  • Customary legal practices do not necessarily exempt actions from being illegal; the legality of hush money payments can depend on specific circumstances and intent.
  • The introduction of Michael Cohen's guilty plea could be considered relevant by the court if it provides context or evidence related to the charges against Trump.
  • The unusual enforcement approach criticized by Shapiro might be seen by others as a necessary response to unique circumstances or as part of a broader effort to uphold the law.
  • Political motivations are difficult to prove, and the decision to prosecute may be based on the evidence and the law rather than political considerations.
  • The move of Matthew Colangelo from Biden's DOJ to Bragg's office could be coincidental or based on professional qualifications rather than suggestive of coordination.
  • Celebrations by Trump's opponents could reflect a belief in the justice system rather than partisanship.
  • Harsher sentencing due to a lack of remorse is a standard consideration in sentencing guidelines and not unique to Trump's case.
  • The potential for jailing Trump to mobilize Republicans is speculative and would depend on the broader political context.
  • Probation restrictions are a common part of sentencing and would be applied to any individual in a similar legal situation, not just Trump.
  • Polls like the NPR/PBS one cited can fluctuate over time, and voter opinions may change as new information emerges or as the political landscape evolves.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Trump CONVICTED Of 34 Felonies. Pray For The Republic.

The legal details of the case against Donald Trump

The case against Donald Trump focuses on the legal intricacies surrounding the hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels, with opinions asserting that the charges may rely on a questionable legal theory.

Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies, all related to hush money payments. Shapiro notes that Alvin Bragg pursued a misdemeanor charge of falsification of business records against Trump.

The prosecution claimed the non-disclosure agreement payments were effectively illegal campaign contributions exceeding the federal limits. Prosecutors typically cannot introduce a witness's criminal history, but they used Michael Cohen's guilty plea to imply Trump’s guilt, though Trump has never been charged with those crimes.

Shapiro questions the validity of NDA payments as federal election law violations solely because they happened near an election. Kelly references Bradley Smith, who suggests that the nature of the payment should be evaluated as a customary legal practice, not on the defendant's intent, as such payments are common outside the electoral context.

Shapiro points out that state prosecutors like the Manhattan District Attorney do not have the jurisdiction to charge federal felonies and criticizes the prosecution's unusual enforcement of federal election finance law at the state level. Kelly criticizes Bragg for attempting to bring a f ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The legal details of the case against Donald Trump

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The hush money payments to Stormy Daniels were payments made to keep her from publicly discussing an alleged affair with Donald Trump. These payments were made through a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and were at the center of legal scrutiny regarding potential violations of campaign finance laws. The controversy stemmed from whether these payments constituted illegal campaign contributions and if they were properly reported as such. The legal intricacies revolved around the timing, purpose, and reporting of these payments in relation to election laws and regulations.
  • The charges against Trump are based on the argument that the hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels were illegal campaign contributions. This legal theory is considered questionable because it involves interpreting these payments as exceeding federal limits for campaign contributions, which some legal experts find to be a novel and potentially contentious approach.
  • Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) payments made to individuals, like Stormy Daniels, can be considered illegal campaign contributions if they are deemed to have been made to influence an election. Such payments could violate campaign finance laws by circumventing contribution limits and transparency requirements. Prosecutors in this case argue that the hush money payments were effectively unreported contributions aimed at benefiting Trump's campaign, which could be seen as a violation of election laws. This legal argument hinges on the assertion that the NDA payments were not merely personal transactions but were made with the intent to influence the outcome of the election.
  • The jurisdictional limitations in charging Trump with federal election law violations stem from the fact that state prosecutors typically do not have the authority to bring charges for federal crimes. In this case, the prosecution used a novel legal approach to bring state charges related to federal election law violations, which raised questions about the boundaries of state versus federal jurisdiction in such matters. This approach was criticized for potentially overstepping the traditional separation between state and federal legal domains. The debate revolves around whether state prosecutors have the authority to charge individuals for violations of federal election laws, especially when the alleged offenses are closely tied to federal regulations.
  • The novel legal approach used to bring state charges in this case involves applying state laws to prosecute actions that may typically fall under federal jurisdiction, such as campaign finance violations. This approach allows state prosecutors to pursue charges related to federal offenses by interpreting state laws in a way that encompasses the alleged misconduct. It can be a contentious strategy as it involves navigating the boundaries between state and federal legal domains, potentially leading to challenges regarding jurisdiction and legal interpretation. This method is often utilized when federal authorities do not pursue charges or when state laws offer a more favorable path to prosecution.
  • The prosecution introduced irrelevant evidence, such as a previous associate's guilty plea, to suggest Trump's guilt in the case. This tactic aimed ...

Counterarguments

  • The legal theory behind the charges may not be as questionable as suggested if it is based on established legal precedents or interpretations that can be reasonably argued in court.
  • Accusations of falsifying business records could be substantiated if there is evidence that the records were indeed altered with the intent to mislead or commit fraud.
  • State prosecutors may have the authority to bring charges related to state laws that are potentially violated by the same conduct that could also constitute federal election law violations.
  • The introduc ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Trump CONVICTED Of 34 Felonies. Pray For The Republic.

The political motivations and implications of the in prosecution

The prosecution of former President Donald Trump has been met with speculation and commentary suggesting that it may be driven by political motives rather than solely by justice.

The prosecution appears to be a politically-motivated effort to target Trump

Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly discuss the prosecution, hinting at the possibility of political motivations behind the legal actions against Trump.

The Manhattan district attorney and New York attorney general have publicly pledged to "get" Trump

Shapiro points to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s campaign promises to prosecute Trump as evidence of a politically motivated case. He notes Bragg’s previous legal actions against the Trump administration and states that Bragg had expressed his intention to hold Trump accountable, suggesting a pre-existing political motivation.

There are indications of coordination between the prosecution and the Biden administration

Shapiro expresses skepticism about the independence of the prosecution, citing Matthew Colangelo's move from the Biden Department of Justice to Bragg's office in Manhattan and the subsequent charges brought against Trump. He raises the idea of potential coordination between Bragg's office and the Biden administration due to the timing of the indictment and Colangelo's career moves. Additionally, Shapiro claims that Biden's DOJ has targeted Trump in three separate jurisdictions, implying wider political coordination.

Shapiro and Kelly also discuss whether the case against Trump might have been influenced by Biden being in the White House, suggesting that Democrats are attempting to affect Trump's future candidacy through the legal system. Kelly questions the lack of coordination with ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The political motivations and implications of the in prosecution

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Matthew Colangelo's move from the Biden Department of Justice to the Manhattan DA's office raised questions about potential coordination between the prosecution and the Biden administration. This move, followed by charges against Trump, led to speculation about the independence of the legal actions and the possibility of political influence. The timing of Colangelo's career transition and the subsequent indictment fueled concerns about coordination between the two entities. Critics like Ben Shapiro suggested that these connections could indicate a broader political agenda at play in the prosecution.
  • The Manhattan DA's campaign promises to prosecute Trump are seen as potentially influencing the actual legal case due to the public statements made by the DA prior to taking office. This connection raises questions about the motivations behind the prosecution and whether political considerations may have played a role in the decision to pursue legal action against Trump. The alignment between the DA's campaign rhetoric and subsequent legal actions can suggest a pre-existing agenda that could impact the perception of the case's impartiality. This link between campaign promises and legal proceedings underscores the complex interplay between politics and the justice system in high-profi ...

Counterarguments

  • Prosecutions should be based on evidence and the rule of law, not political affiliation; if there is substantial evidence of wrongdoing, it is the duty of the legal system to pursue justice regardless of the individual's political status.
  • Campaign promises to hold individuals accountable under the law are not inherently indicative of political bias; they can also reflect a commitment to legal accountability.
  • Career moves between government departments are common and do not necessarily imply improper coordination or political motives.
  • The Biden administration has stated its commitment to maintaining the independence of the Department of Justice, and there is no confirmed evidence of direct interference in legal proceedings.
  • Public reactions to legal case ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Trump CONVICTED Of 34 Felonies. Pray For The Republic.

The potential consequences of the conviction for Trump

Shapiro and Megyn Kelly discuss the potential fallout from a conviction for former President Donald Trump, examining how it might affect his chances in the 2024 presidential election and the political landscape at large.

If Trump is sentenced to jail time, it could have significant political impacts

The outcome of Trump’s legal challenges could significantly influence not only his personal life but also the course of American politics.

The judge may use Trump's lack of remorse as a justification for handing down a harsh promotion

Ben Shapiro discusses that one of the factors in determining Trump's sentence is his level of remorse. Trump's characteristic lack of remorse could lead to a difficult situation where he must choose between showing contrition for a crime he maintains he didn't commit or facing the increased likelihood of jail time. Shapiro warns that if Trump expresses remorse, it could be taken as an admission of guilt, which could hurt his campaign. Conversely, a lack of remorse might prompt the judge to opt for a harsher sentence.

Jailing a leading presidential candidate could spark outrage and undermine faith in the democratic process

Shapiro speculates on the potential upheaval that sentencing Trump to jail could cause. He predicts that this might set off widespread outrage among Republicans and Trump supporters, potentially "making the judge a hero to Democrats and sparking political chaos." Kelly suggests that putting Trump in jail or even under probation could outrage many voters, possibly guaranteeing Trump's success in an election due to increased Republican voter turnout caused by the perceived injustice.

Even if Trump avoids jail, the conviction and potential probation restrictions could disrupt his 2024 campaign

Shapiro and Kelly outline the possible restrictions that a probation sentence for Trump would entail, such as travel restrictions and the requirement to check in with a probation officer, and how they could absurdly impact his running a campaign. Shapiro notes that the legal proceedings and ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The potential consequences of the conviction for Trump

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Trump's lack of remorse could influence his sentencing because judges often consider a defendant's attitude towards their actions when determining the appropriate punishment. If Trump shows no remorse for his alleged actions, the judge might view this as a lack of acceptance of responsibility, potentially leading to a harsher sentence. On the other hand, expressing remorse could be seen as an admission of guilt, which might also have negative implications for his political future. This dilemma puts Trump in a challenging position where his response to the accusations could impact both his legal outcome and his electoral prospects.
  • When a candidate is on probation, they may face restrictions like limited travel and regular check-ins with a probation officer. These limitations could disrupt the candidate's ability to campaign effectively, impacting their schedule and ability to engage with voters. Such restrictions could hinder the candidate's campaign logistics and outreach efforts, potentially affecting their overall performance in the election.
  • The connection between legal proceedings and Republican voter mobilization lies in the potential for Trump's legal challenges to unify and energize Republican voters, who may perce ...

Counterarguments

  • While Trump's lack of remorse could indeed lead to a harsher sentence, it's also possible that the judge may prioritize legal precedents and the specifics of the case over the defendant's demeanor.
  • The assertion that jailing Trump could undermine faith in democracy assumes that the legal process is not seen as fair and just; however, if the trial is perceived as fair, it could reinforce the principle that no one is above the law, thereby strengthening democratic institutions.
  • While probation restrictions could disrupt Trump's campaign, they could also be seen as a fair consequence of legal proceedings, and his campaign might adapt by using virtual events or surrogates to campaign on his behalf.
  • It's not a given that legal proceedings will unify and mobilize Republican voters; some may become disillusioned with continuous legal issues and s ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA