In a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday afternoon, a single word reverberated 34 times, altering the course of American history.

"Guilty."

That verdict was rendered by a 12-person New York jury, finding former President Donald Trump culpable on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to commit or conceal another crime. The case revolved around allegations that he sought to conceal a $130,000 hush-money payment to an adult film actress to safeguard his chances in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump now holds the dubious distinction of being the first former U.S. president convicted of a crime. Additionally, he's the inaugural individual convicted of a felony while poised to become a major party presidential nominee. Experts assert that this development marks a triumph for the rule of law — at least for the time being — irrespective of its potential impact on future elections.

Trump has a track record of historic firsts. He notably became the first president lacking governmental or military background, the first to decline committing to a peaceful transfer of power, and the first to face impeachment proceedings twice. This latest milestone will undoubtedly etch itself into his legacy.

While opinions among political scientists and historians were split on whether the verdict would significantly impact the 2024 presidential election, they unanimously concurred on one undeniable truth: the verdict will reshape the pages of history books.

The paramount lesson?

"In a country governed by laws, not individuals, no one stands beyond the reach of the law," asserted Jennifer Mercieca, a professor at Texas A&M University. "Not even a president.


No moment like this 

Previous U.S. presidents have been entangled in prominent legal issues, lawsuits, and congressional inquiries from political scandals. Trump's New York hush money case has evoked parallels to the Watergate scandal, which led to Richard Nixon's resignation from the presidency, and President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998 during his second term in office.

However, Susan Liebell, a political science professor at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, argued that those incidents don't parallel Trump's 34 felony convictions, as neither Nixon nor Clinton were convicted of a crime. Liebell expressed skepticism towards those who claim to foresee the impact of the New York verdict on American politics based on these past instances.

"No American president has previously faced a criminal conviction," Liebell emphasized. "There are no historical precedents.

In contrast to Trump, Nixon never underwent trial. He received a preemptive pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford, shielding him from potential criminal prosecution for his involvement in the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the ensuing cover-up. Nixon resigned from the presidency midway through his second term in 1974, as pressure mounted in Congress for his impeachment. Following his resignation, the Republican president refrained from seeking public office again.

Meanwhile, Trump has completed just one term in the White House and is currently the presumed GOP nominee for president — with no indication of halting his reelection campaign in light of Thursday’s verdict. Throughout the trial, Trump remained defiant and unapologetic, steadfastly maintaining his innocence, stating he "didn’t do anything wrong."

Jeffrey Engel, director of presidential history projects at Southern Methodist University, contended that while "Nixon isn’t typically cited by historians as an exemplar of presidential conduct," the former president "recognized the significance of the presidency and the nation beyond himself."

"To this day, Donald Trump has not," Engel remarked.

Engel and Shannon O’Brien, a professor and self-professed "presidency aficionado" at the University of Texas at Austin, also rejected comparisons to Clinton’s 1998 impeachment by the House, which centered on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice related to a sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.



While both Trump and Clinton’s cases "involved sexual issues," according to O’Brien, "that's essentially where the similarities end."

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate following his impeachment by the House, and the Justice Department refrained from pursuing federal criminal penalties against the Democrat due to a longstanding policy, dating back to Nixon's era, that prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents while in office. Additionally, Clinton struck an agreement with the Justice Department on his final day in office to circumvent post-presidential prosecution concerning a related matter. This arrangement entailed paying a fine, undergoing a five-year suspension of his law license, and publicly acknowledging unprofessional conduct.

In contrast, Trump was convicted on Thursday of 34 state felony counts by a 12-person jury. Furthermore, he still confronts criminal charges in three separate jurisdictions — two federal cases and a state case in Georgia — related to accusations of attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and retaining classified materials after leaving the White House, alongside obstruction of the ensuing investigation. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

President Clinton's tenure as an elected official concluded following his two terms in the White House. Nevertheless, Engel proposed that the scandals surrounding the Democratic president adversely impacted then-Vice President Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid, culminating in a narrow defeat to George W. Bush.

"If Trump were to lose, we might interpret it as a lesson from the Clinton era, and from the experiences of all presidents, that there are limits to the electorate's tolerance for supporting a candidate," Engel remarked. "Currently, that threshold is set at felony conviction. However, it's entirely plausible that this threshold could shift by the time November arrives A single word uttered 34 times in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday afternoon changed American history.

“

A victory in accordance with the constitution

Historians characterized the verdict in Trump’s trial as a reaffirmation of some of the most cherished legal principles in the nation, notably the phrase “equal justice under the law” emblazoned atop the U.S. Supreme Court building.

Engel contended that the framers of the Constitution would view this outcome with approval, seeing their envisioned political system withstand the test. Rather than falter, he argued, the justice system treated a former commander-in-chief no differently than any other citizen, as intended.

Last year, a New York grand jury determined there was adequate evidence to prosecute Trump for the hush-money payments. Following six weeks of testimony in a Manhattan courtroom, a jury of Trump’s peers unanimously found the former president guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

“He was not convicted by President Biden or his political adversaries but by a jury of 12 ordinary Americans, swiftly and unanimously,” remarked Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University.



Engel and Lichtman, however, voiced apprehension over Trump’s reaction to the verdict, fearing it could undermine trust in U.S. institutions that facilitated the former president’s trial.

“They may argue that New Yorkers are inherently biased to render a fair judgment, that a jury could be swayed by an overzealous prosecutor or a biased judge, or even claim that the entire trial was politically motivated,” Engel remarked of Trump and his supporters.

Shortly after the jury announced its decision, Trump swiftly denounced his New York verdict as “a disgrace” and pledged to contest his felony convictions. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., echoed this sentiment, characterizing the case as a “weaponization of our justice system” by Democrats aimed at preventing Trump from reclaiming the presidency.

O’Brien contended that Trump and his supporters were baselessly alleging bias within the New York courts because acknowledging its legitimacy would undermine their political agenda.

He is incapable of acknowledging a system that holds him accountable,” O’Brien remarked. “He must dismantle it because he has no other recourse.

An uncertain future

After the trial concluded on Thursday, Trump contended that the "ultimate verdict" regarding his innocence would emerge on Election Day.

According to the latest RealClearPolitics Average of national polls, Trump and President Joe Biden are currently deadlocked, with Trump holding a slight edge.

According to experts interviewed by TODAY US NEWS 24, opinions are divided on how Trump's felony conviction will impact his chances of victory. They observed that Trump's campaign is likely to leverage the verdict to rally support and fundraising among his base. However, the potential impact on swing voters remains uncertain.

"We can't predict how voters will respond," Liebell remarked. "The key question is its effect on independent voters and Republicans who may align with conservative policies but harbor concerns about corruption and integrity."

Liebell referenced an Ipsos poll from April, which revealed that approximately 40% of Republicans and two-thirds of independents viewed the hush money charges as significant. Among those who indicated they would vote for Trump if the election were held at that moment, 13% stated they would not support him if convicted of a felony by a jury. Additionally, 25% indicated they would withdraw their support if he were serving a prison sentence at the time of the election.
Considering the narrow margins in the presidential race, Lichtman proposed that even a minor shift of moderate voters away from Trump could potentially impede the Republican's prospects of winning.
Lichtman has accurately predicted the winner of most presidential elections since 1984, except for the 2000 race. While he has not issued a final forecast for this year, he indicated that "a lot would need to go awry for Biden to lose reelection