Two jurors are dismissed as the trial continues

With colorful hyperbole, he has presented the cases against him, offered false accusations and baseless defenses of his actions, and directed false attacks at both opponents and adjudicators.

When asked for proof of Mr. Trump’s assertions, the campaign chose not to answer the question directly but instead persisted in saying that Mr. Trump was the victim of a Democratic Party “witch hunt” despite the lack of proof.

Here is a fact-check of a few of his most often made statements.

Unfounded claims of a conspiracy orchestrated by Biden.

The words of Mr. Trump.

Biden stated as much. He said, “You know what their entire strategy is? It was just made public a few days ago.”. It didn’t; instead, one of the many people who undoubtedly believed it to be incorrect leaked it. Their entire strategy is to pursue Trump in any manner they can, particularly through the legal and criminal systems. “.

— during a March demonstration in Georgia.

There is no proof for this. The Justice Department has no control over two of the four criminal cases against Mr. Trump because they were filed by municipal or state prosecutors. Attorney General Merrick B. is in charge of his two other criminal cases as a special counsel. Garland was chosen in order to prevent any conflict of interest from appearing.

Uncertainty surrounds the leak to which Mr. Trump was alluding, and The New York Times could not locate any evidence of a scheme to pursue Mr. Trump “criminally and legally.”. False posts that are making the rounds on social media purport that Mr. Biden or his advisors have acknowledged using the legal system as a weapon. These posts use carefully edited video footage.

That being said, there is no proof that Mr. Biden is personally overseeing the legal actions taken against his political rival. Mr. Biden has stated in the open that the Justice Department is independent. Furthermore, as per reports from The Times and other news sources, Joe Biden’s campaign tactic is to remain silent regarding Donald Trump’s legal issues.

Things Stated by Mr. Trump.

“Jack Smith has finally acknowledged what the American People already know: that the Biden Administration is in charge of and overseeing his case. In other words, even though he disputes it, Garland is carrying out his boss’s orders to bring charges against me and meddle in the 2024 election. “.

— in a March post on Truth Social.

That is deceptive. The court document that the prosecutors in the case involving the classified documents were referring to, and Mr. Trump was drastically misrepresenting it.

Attorney General Merrick B. was the moveant in the case, and the document was a response to that move. To name Jack Smith as the case’s special counsel, Garland lacked the necessary authority. In the Watergate case, the Supreme Court upheld this authority, according to the prosecution, and numerous special counsels have since been appointed, including by the Justice Department under Mr. Trump.

Dear Mr. Even though he took the statement out of context, it appears that Trump was referring to the special counsel’s job description found in the filing: “The special counsel was retained from outside the department to ‘ensure a full and thorough investigation’ of certain sensitive matters.”. He still receives guidance and oversight from the attorney general, but he also has “a substantial degree of independent decision making.”. “.”.

What was said by Mr. Trump.

See, the D.A in Manhattan. has a man in it by the name of Colangelo. He was Merrick Garland’s trusted advisor. He was placed in the Manhattan DdotA. is office. Fani Willis talked about my case extensively with her lover while they were in Washington. They spoke about my case when they emerged during the hearings. The alpha. H. Letitia James, a resident of New York, frequently interacts with Washington. “.

— during a March interview on Fox News.

It’s over the top. When pressed for evidence supporting his allegation that Mr. Biden was personally overseeing the local cases against him, Mr. Trump referred to alleged connections between prosecutors and “Washington,” but he did not present any proof that Mr. Biden had participated in any of the hiring choices, discussions, or meetings that Mr. Trump had mentioned.

The district attorney for Manhattan, Alvin L. Matthew Colangelo was appointed senior counsel by Bragg in December 2022. Before the position was filled permanently, Mr. Colangelo held the third-highest ranking, non-top, position of acting associate attorney general at the Justice Department, as well as the attorney general’s office in New York. None of the evidence points to Mr. Biden or the Justice Department being involved in Mr. Colangelo’s appointment. The appointment of Mr. Colangelo coincided with Mr. Bragg’s escalation of his probe into Mr. Trump’s involvement in hush money payments made during the 2016 election. The two men had previously collaborated at the New York attorney general’s office under the leadership of Ms. James.

As previously reported by The Times, Fani T. Willis is the district attorney for Fulton County, Georgia. , and her office had conferred with the House committee that was looking into the Jan. 6, 2021, assault as a component of her case pertaining to election meddling. Nathan J. is an outside attorney that Ms. Willis hired. Wade, her ex-boyfriend who left the case in March, had two meetings with the White House Counsel’s Office in 2022 to spearhead the prosecution. It is unclear why those meetings were held, but a former White House attorney told The Times that the office may get involved when former officials are asked to testify.

Mr. Trump frequently brings up Letitia James’ three visits to the White House. James is the attorney general of New York and filed a civil fraud case against him for allegedly inflating the value of his properties. Visitor logs indicate that she made her first visit in April 2022 to the South Lawn, where a large crowd had gathered to commemorate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. She returned in July 2023 to discuss efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking with state attorneys general and Vice President Kamala Harris. In August 2023, she made a visit to attend an event hosted by Ms. Harris to honor Black women who hold public office. According to the White House, Mr. Biden did not interact with individual guests during the first event and did not show up for the next two.

disproportionate allegations of persecution.

Things Stated by Mr. Trump.

“Why wasn’t it brought against me three years ago, with these fake cases inspired by Joe Biden? Crooked Joe Biden wanted them brought right in the middle of my 2024 Presidential Election Campaign, strictly Third World Country’stuff!'”.

— in a post from March on Truth Social.

Untrue. Three of the numerous cases in which Mr. Trump has been involved started prior to Mr. Biden taking office, and three more focus on Mr. Trump’s actions following the election and during his presidency. There’s no proof that Mr. Biden has tried to make the cases drag on. In general, investigations and prosecutions take time, and Mr. Trump has made repeated attempts to stall the process.

In 2018, the investigation into hush money payments got underway while Mr. Trump was still in office. In March 2019, Ms. James started looking into the Trump Organization’s financial activities. The author, E. In November 2019, Jean Carroll filed her initial lawsuit against Mr. Trump on grounds of defamation.

Mrs. In February 2021, Willis began her investigation into the efforts of Mr. Trump and his allies to rig the Georgian election. The investigation was expanded in March 2022. In January 2022, a senior official in the Justice Department announced that it had begun looking into a scheme by Mr. Trump and his supporters to rewrite the outcome of the 2020 election. November 2022 saw the appointment of Mr. Smith as the special prosecutor in the documents case.

What was said by Mr. Trump.

It’s a variation on Navalny. It’s a type of fascism or communism. “.

In February, during a town hall on Fox News.

Erroneous. When questioned about the decision in his civil fraud case, Mr. Trump compared himself to the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who had passed away in jail a few days earlier. The two situations are not at all comparable.

Hey, Mr. Navalny had been behind bars since early 2021, sometimes in solitary confinement, and serving multiple prison sentences. Along with surviving past physical attacks, he had also been poisoned in 2020. He was being detained in a prison colony north of the Arctic Circle at the time of his death. On the other hand, Mr. Trump was required to pay a fine, which he has since appealed and had lowered.

Things Stated by Mr. Trump.

A bond of the magnitude set by the corrupt, racist, Democrat Club-controlled judge in Letitia James’ illegal Witch Hunt is unprecedented, practically unfeasible for ANY Company, including one as prosperous as mine, and un-American. The Bonding Companies have never heard of or could not post a bond this size, even if they wanted to. There has never before been a use of the statute that was used against me. “.

— in posts from March on Truth Social.

Erroneous. In February, a New York State Supreme Court judge decided that Mr. Trump’s civil fraud case required him to pay $355 million, plus interest, or roughly $454 million. When Mr. Trump first had problems getting a bond, he falsely claimed that the bond amount and Ms. James’s application of New York state law were unprecedented.

Certain corporations have issued bonds worth up to $1 billion, as reported by PolitiFact. Mr. Trump referenced a 1956 state statute that has been invoked by the attorneys general of New York in legal actions brought against Exxon Mobil, Juul, and two other businesses that he owns: the Trump Foundation, his family’s nonprofit, and Trump University, his for-profit university.

Comparisons that are both flawed and unnecessary.

What Mr. Trump Said.

Al Capone received fewer indictments than I did. “.

In a March rally held in Ohio.

Untrue. There have been four indictments against Mr. Trump. A claims that renowned mobster Mr. Dot Capone was at least six times indicted. Historian Brad Schwartz, who penned his biography.

What was said by Mr. Trump.

“Well, no one else has been throughout the years because, well, Bill and Hillary took a lot.”. Bill defeated them in what is known as the “socks case,” winning before an extremely tough judge. Bush acquired them. All of them. Reagan eliminated them. All of them removed them. I had to remove certain items before it became a major topic. “.

At the Fox News town hall.

Untrue. The instances that Mr. Trump uses to draw comparisons with the federal criminal case, where he is charged with obstructing justice, mishandling classified documents, and lying to officials, actually have nothing in common with it.

According to the prosecution, Mr. Trump stole hundreds of classified documents from the White House at the conclusion of his presidency, disregarded a subpoena to turn them over to the National Archives and Records Administration, kept them in places where resort staff could access them, and disclosed military secrets to guests staying at his property.

Before becoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had her own private email server. Although it did keep emails containing classified material, multiple official investigations have found that Mrs. Clinton did not intentionally or methodically handle classified material improperly.

Bill Clinton’s case is even less relevant as a former president. For access to audio recordings of interviews between Mr. Dot Clinton and author and historian Taylor Branch, a conservative legal organization filed a lawsuit against the National Archives. Mr. Branch claimed that Mr. Clinton kept the tapes in his sock drawer. In 2012, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, citing the National Archives’ lack of possession of the tapes and its lack of authority to seize them.

And there is no evidence that any presidents before Mr. Trump took classified documents with them upon leaving office, despite Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that there was a precedent. According to a statement from the National Archives, it “assumed physical and legal custody of the presidential records from the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. A. W. upon the departure of Presidents Bush and Ronald Reagan. “.

According to the agency, “reports that indicate or imply that those presidential records were housed in substandard conditions, or that the records were in the possession of the former presidents or their representatives, after they left office, are false and misleading.”.

What Mr. Trump Said.

“The special counsel’s report tries to let Biden off by claiming that he is too mentally incompetent to convict at a trial. ”.

At an event held in South Carolina in February.

It is deceptive. Mr. Trump was making reference to the Robert K. Hur, the special counsel who investigated Mr. Biden’s handling of classified material. Mr. Hur described Mr. Biden as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” who had “diminished faculties and faulty memory. ” He did not declare Mr. Biden mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Mr. Hur wrote that while he believed Mr. Biden knew he was not allowed to keep classified notebooks, there was not sufficient evidence “to prove his willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. ” He added that Mr. Biden’s “diminished faculties in advancing age and his sympathetic demeanor” would make it difficult to persuade a jury to convict him.

Inaccurate attacks on judges.

What Mr. Trump Said.

“Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately. His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me. ”.

— in a Truth Social post in March.

This is exaggerated. A digital campaign strategy agency that worked with numerous well-known Democrats, including Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, was presided over by Loren Merchan, the daughter of the judge overseeing the hush money case.

The “conversations” Mr. Trump alluded to are a story from a 2019 podcast interview that Ms. Merchan had regarding campaign tactics. In the episode, Ms. Merchan related what her father had recently said, stating, “I detest Twitter use by politicians.”. It’s so unprofessional. ” She said she had argued that there are improper uses of social media, like posts by Mr. Trump sharing “anything that he thinks,” but that social media allows candidates to bypass traditional media.

Judicial ethics specialists have stated that Ms. Merchan’s work does not provide adequate justification for recusal. When Mr. Trump’s legal team sought his recusal based on his daughter, Justice Merchan sought counsel from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which said it did not see any conflict of interest.

What Mr. Trump Said.

“This judge, he levels a fine for $355 million on a loan that’s a fraction of that size because he’s a corrupt Democrat clubhouse judge. He wouldn’t allow a jury. There was no jury. “.

— at a March rally in Georgia.

Not true. A jury was not called in Mr. Trump’s civil fraud trial, but not because Justice Arthur F. The judge overseeing the case, Engoron, declined one. Due to the fact that Ms. James brought the case under a New York state statute that gives the attorney general broad jurisdiction to look into corporate fraud and calls for a bench trial—a trial in which a judge acts alone—there was no jury.

“You have probably noticed or already read that this case has no jury,” Justice Engoron said at the start of the October trial, addressing the unique circumstances. All of the remedies sought are equitable in nature, and since neither side requested one, a bench trial with a judge as the sole arbiter is required. Forget my pathetic attempts at humor; I swear I’ll try my hardest. “.

Things Stated by Mr. Trump.

Another element of the Election Interference HOAX is Engoron’s deceptive appraisal of Mar-a-Lago, which he falsely claimed was worth $18,000,000 but is actually worth 50–100 times that amount. “.

— in a March Truth Social post.

That is deceptive. The Florida club and mansion owned by Mr. Trump, Mar-a-Lago, was valued by Justice Engoron at $18 million, nothing more.

“From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a-Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million,” Justice Engoron wrote in his September ruling against Mr. Trump.

Alright, Mr. According to Justice Engoron, Trump’s valuation of the property was overvalued by at least 2,300 percent compared to the assessor’s appraisal, which ranged from $426 million to $612 million.

Based on the appraisal conducted by Palm Beach County, Mar-a-Lago’s current market value is $37 million. ).

Dear Mr. In an effort to conceal a payment made to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claims to have had a brief sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, the 77-year-old is accused of fabricating almost thirty-six business records.

Should he be found guilty, his sentence could range from four years in prison to probation. Mr. Trump has proclaimed his innocence, denied any involvement with Ms. Daniels, and described the accusations against him as a “witch hunt” orchestrated by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Democratic candidate Bragg.

Five key points from Mr. Trump’s second day of the trial are as follows:.

Unexpectedly, we’re moving fast.

According to Juan M. Merchan, the trial’s supervisor, it should take roughly six weeks. However, court officials had warned that choosing the twelve jurors and several alternates might take up to two weeks.

However, things have moved quickly thanks to the experience and no-nonsense approach of veteran jurist Justice Merchan. He swore in an additional 96 potential jurors before departing on Tuesday. They are scheduled to return on Thursday, as Wednesday is not a trial day. This could mean that the entire jury will be seated this week.

The seven jurors that were chosen were instructed to come back on Monday. At this rate of juror seating, opening arguments will probably start that day, according to Justice Merchan.

There were numerous inquiries from the prosecution. It was essentially one for the defense.

A basic set of 42 questions, many with subsections, is answered by potential jurors; following this, attorneys question them directly.

This meant questioning the prosecution about the rule of law, faulty witness testimony, immunity agreements, and whether or not they thought anyone could be held accountable for crimes they assisted in planning but did not carry out. While claiming that the questions were unimportant, the prosecution also questioned potential jurors about their opinions of Mr. Trump.

A prosecutor named Joshua Steinglass told the group, “This case has nothing to do with your personal politics.”.

However, Todd Blanche, the head of the defense team, repeatedly questioned potential jurors about their opinions of the former president, showing a great deal of concern for their feelings.

Emphasizing to potential jurors that Mr. Trump remained innocent until and unless proven guilty, he did this.

Mr. Blanche remarked, “He has no obligation to do anything.”.

It’s Trump in the space. And there’s Trump out there.

Mr. Trump, a showman and salesman at heart, is not permitted to voice his opinions inside the dim Lower Manhattan courtroom. It’s true that he received a warning on Monday that having tantrums will not be allowed. Unlike the previous challenges he has encountered, he hasn’t caused any significant disruptions thus far.

Outside the courtroom is another matter. In short bursts, Mr. Trump has taken to criticizing the case and the judge’s rulings in front of reporters and their cameras, of course.

That strategy continued on Tuesday morning, as he stopped before entering the courtroom to tell reporters that the trial “should have never been brought. As he has done numerous times previously, he referred to Justice Merchan as a Trump-hating judge. “.

Alright, Mr. Trump has occasionally acted brashly in court, but not entirely. Mr. Trump muttered something under his breath after Mr. Blanche asked a potential juror about a social media post suggesting she supported President Biden.

It infuriated Justice Merchan.

The judge declared, “I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom.”.

The jurors’ personal narratives are quite personal. Possibly excessively.

The names of potential jurors will remain private, according to a ruling made last month by Justice Merchan.

However, a few have disclosed details that could be used to identify them, such as their employers’ names. One, a municipal employee, disclosed her employer. One revealed the name of the three-person business she and her spouse own.

In his ruling on March 7, Justice Merchan stated that the limited anonymity would shield jurors from intimidation or bribery. However, a few potential jurors disclosed private information on their own initiative, without the judge having to intervene.

Every now and then there are chuckles.

Lawyers and jury experts say that jury selection is one of the most critical elements of any trial, let alone the first criminal trial of a former American president. Tension was high in Justice Merchan’s courtroom on Tuesday as attorneys representing opposing parties looked for information that would support their positions or reveal potential biases.

There were, however, still some amusing moments. One potential juror responded, “I’ve dated a lawyer for a while,” when asked if she knew anyone in the legal industry. “.

After a brief pause, she continued, saying, “It ended fine. “.

When asked how he spent his free time, a prospective juror who lived on the Lower East Side made people laugh with his distinctly New York response.

He said, “I don’t have any free time.”.

Justice Merchan grinned in response to a prospective juror who questioned whether her September wedding would present a conflict.

Then he said, “If we’re sitting in September.”. That could present a serious issue. “.

But the process has been particularly drawn-out because, once would-be jurors say they can be fair and impartial, they are being asked a series of 42 questions. Following that, they come under closer examination from attorneys representing the prosecution and defense.

These are the 42 inquiries:.

1. Do you live in any particular neighborhood—such as the Upper East Side, Lower East Side, Inwood, etc.—without providing us with your address? If not, where did you previously reside? How long have you lived there? Are you a native of New York?

2. What is your occupation? How long have you been in that line of work? If you are retired, please describe your previous employment.

Three. Which company do you work for now? How big is it? Do you work for yourself or do you have your own business? Who was your previous employer?

4. What level of education have you completed? List all of your degrees, including graduate, undergraduate, and post-graduate.

5. Have you ever been married? Do you currently have kids?

6. What is the occupation of the adult you live with or if you are married to another adult, and if you have adult children, what do they do for a living?

7. What are your interests and hobbies? What do you like to do in your free time?

8. Which advocacy or membership groups do you participate in?

9. When was the last time you served on a jury? We would like to know if it was for a grand jury, criminal court, or civil court. Please let us know whether the jury reached a decision without giving away the outcome.

10. Which of the following print publications, cable and/or network programs, or online media such as websites, blogs, or social media platforms do you visit, read, or watch? (The New York Times, USA Today, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Google, Facebook, X, TikTok, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, Newsday, The Washington Post, Fox News, Newsmax, MSN, Yahoo, Truth Social).

11. Which podcasts do you watch or listen to, if any?

12. Which talk shows do you usually listen to on the radio?

13. Have you, a close friend, or a family member ever been the victim of a crime? If so, kindly describe the incident in brief.

14. Have you, a family member, or a close friend ever worked for the government, the FBI, the district attorney’s office, the department of corrections, etc.?

15. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been employed by a federal, state, or any local government, including but not limited to the State of New York?

16. Have you, a family member, or a close friend ever worked in finance or accounting?

17. Have you, a close friend, or a relative ever pursued any legal education, training, or employment, including but not limited to practicing civil or criminal law?

18. Have you, a relative, or a close friend had any experience or interaction with the criminal justice system, including a police officer or other type of law enforcement agent, which caused you to form an opinion, whether positive or negative, about the police or our criminal justice system? If so, what was the experience? Would that experience prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case?

19. Have you ever been charged with or found guilty of a crime alongside a family member or close friend?

Twenty. Are you, a close friend, or a relative facing a criminal case right now?

22. Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions which might prevent you from following the Court’s instructions on the law or which might slant your approach to this case? Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that would interfere with your ability to render a verdict in this criminal case?

22. Do you have a health condition that might interfere with your ability to be here on the appointed days and times or otherwise prevent you from serving as a juror?

23. Without telling us the name(s), do you take any medication that would prevent you from being able to concentrate or pay attention during the proceedings or during the deliberations?

24. Court proceedings normally end around 4:30 in the afternoon though on rare occasions, we might work beyond that. Would your schedule and responsibilities permit you to work later if it were absolutely necessary to complete that day’s work?

25. Do you practice a religion that would prevent you from sitting as a juror on any particular weekday or weeknight?

26. Can you give us an assurance that you will be fair and impartial and not base your decision in this case upon a bias or prejudice in favor of or against a person who may appear in this trial, on account of that person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation or political views?

27. Can you commit to avoiding letting implicit bias—a term used to describe preconceived notions or beliefs about specific people or groups of people—have an impact on your choices?

29. Have you, a close friend, or a family member ever held a position at a business or organization that Donald Trump or any member of his family owns or controls?

30. Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonged to any of the following: (the QAnon movement, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Boogaloo Boys, Antifa).

31. Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about whether a former president may be criminally charged in state court?

32. Do you have any feelings or opinions about how Mr. Trump is being treated in this case?

33. Could you assure us that you will base your decision in this case only on the evidence presented to you in this courtroom and the law as the judge interprets it?

35. Do you possess any strong convictions or strong opinions about the former president Donald Trump, or the fact that he is running for president right now, that would make it difficult for you to serve as an unbiased and fair juror?

33. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any of the following books or podcasts by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz? If so, please let us know if what you have heard or read affects your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case (“Disloyal: A Memoir,” “Revenge,” “Mea Culpa,” “People Vs. Donald Trump”).

36. The defendant in this case has written a number of books. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any one or more of those books? If so, which ones?

37. Do you have any opinions about the legal limits governing political contributions?

38. Can you promise to set aside anything you may have heard or read about this case and render your verdict based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom and the law as given to you by the judge?

37. Can you guarantee us that you will not watch, read, or listen to any accounts of this case while the trial is pending, nor will you discuss this case with anyone in any way?

40. Is the judge going to instruct you on the definition of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, among other legal matters, as you have promised to do?

Number 41. According to the US Constitution, a defendant in a criminal case is not required to present any evidence or give a testimony. Can you guarantee that you won’t hold Mr. Trump accountable if he decides not to testify or present any evidence?

42. If chosen to serve as a juror in this case, is there anything that would prohibit you from being fair and impartial, be it bias or something else?

He is still very competitive in polls and does not currently face any official campaign restrictions outside of needing to appear in court. However, some of the cases are moving quickly enough to result in verdicts before the election; in addition, only some of the questions that will come up if he is found guilty have clear answers under American law and the Constitution.

Others would bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges.

Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.

Can Trump run if he is convicted?

This is the simplest question of the bunch. The answer is yes.

The Constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. It is required that they have been citizens of the United States for at least 14 years, be at least 35 years old, and be “natural born.”.

There are no restrictions because of a person’s criminal history or character. Certain states have laws that forbid felons from seeking state or local office; however, federal offices are exempt from these laws.

Every state guarantees the Republican and Democratic Parties a spot on the ballot for the general election, and the parties choose who gets to write their names there. Though this would be on shaky legal ground, states could theoretically try to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot by passing legislation requiring a clean criminal record.

The best interpretation of our Constitution, according to Jessica Levinson, a professor of election law at Loyola Law School, is that you don’t let the state add new substantive requirements. “We let states set the time, place, and manner” of elections. “.

Legal experts may not all share that opinion, but in 2019, a California law requiring candidates to submit their tax returns in order to run for office was passed. This opinion was upheld in court. The law was declared most likely unconstitutional by a federal district judge, who prevented it from going into effect. As a violation of the state constitution, the California Supreme Court unanimously barred it as well, and the case never made it to the U. S. The Supreme Court.

And the Fourteenth Amendment?

Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies persons who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in March that states could not keep Mr. Trump off their ballots.

Several legal actions have contended that Mr. Trump’s conduct prior to and on Jan. 6, 2021, satisfied this requirement. The Secretary of State of Maine affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court’s December ruling that he was ineligible. However, the Supreme Court—led by a conservative supermajority and featuring three justices personally appointed by Mr. Trump—came to the conclusion that only Congress possessed the authority to impose Section 3 against federal office candidates. (Three liberal justices and four other justices supported expanding the categories for disqualification. ).

Republicans control the House, so Congress is not going to act in that way. And the 14th Amendment is separate from criminal cases, meaning convictions would not disqualify Mr. Trump either.

Congress can designate either groups of people to whom Section 3 applies (such as people who fought for the Confederacy) or specific crimes that, upon conviction, would trigger disqualification, said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University. However, Mr. Trump is not automatically punished for any of the crimes he is accused of.

It’s not the same as asking whether Trump is disqualified if he is tried, found guilty, or found not guilty, according to Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.

According to Mr. Kreis, Congress eliminated the disqualification penalty for conspiracy to violate civil rights, one of the charges in the federal case pertaining to Mr. Trump’s attempts to rig the 2020 election decades ago.

Could he be replaced on the ticket by the party?

The party lacks a means of nominating someone else now that Mr. Trump has amassed a majority of delegates to the Republican convention. Under the party’s official convention rules, if a delegate tries to support someone other than the person the primary results bound them to, “such support shall not be recognized. “.

Senior Republicans have also demonstrated no enthusiasm for a different nominee.

Party leaders could replace him if he were forced to drop out of the race following the convention; they even entertained the idea in 2016 following the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, on which he boasted about grabbing women’s genitalia. However, considering the ferocity with which the party has surrounded him, this is implausible.

In the event of a conviction, could he vote?

Most likely not.

Dear Mr. In the event that Trump is found guilty of a felony, he will lose his right to vote in Florida, where he is currently registered to vote.

Most felons in Florida regain voting rights after completing their full sentence, including parole or probation, and paying all fines and fees. However, it is extremely unlikely that Mr. Trump would have enough time to serve out his sentence before Election Day in the event that he is found guilty.

Additionally, he could file a petition for clemency, which would need the support of two Florida cabinet members and the governor, Ron DeSantis, who opposed Mr. Trump in the Republican primary. Chris Taylor, the director of external affairs for the Florida Commission on Offender Review, confirmed that a Florida resident convicted of a felony could apply to have their voting rights restored through that process even if their conviction happened outside Florida.

Given that Mr. Trump resides in New York, he may decide to change his voter registration there in order to benefit from the state’s more lenient laws, which allow felons to vote while they are on parole or probation. However, they continue to be denied the right to vote while incarcerated, just like in Florida and practically every other state.

Therefore, Mr. Trump may find himself in the unique situation of being qualified to be nominated but ineligible to cast a ballot if he is incarcerated.

If Trump is elected while incarcerated, what would happen?

Nobody is aware of this.

According to University of California, Berkeley constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky, “we’re so far removed from anything that’s ever happened.”. “That is only conjecture.”. ”.

Even if Mr. Trump were imprisoned, he would still be eligible to serve as president legally. There is nothing in the Constitution to the contrary. Professor Levinson stated, “I don’t think the framers ever thought we were going to be in this situation.”.

In actuality, a president who is imprisoned would lead to a legal crisis that would almost definitely require judicial intervention to be resolved.

According to the 25th Amendment, which outlines a procedure for handing over power to the vice president in the event that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” Mr. Trump might theoretically lose his position of authority. But that would mean declaring Mr. Trump incapable of carrying out his duties, which would take a lot of support from the vice president and most of the cabinet—a remote possibility considering that Mr. Trump himself would have appointed these loyalists.

The more likely scenario is that Mr. Trump files a lawsuit to be released, claiming that his detention keeps him from carrying out his presidential duties as required by the Constitution. A case like this would likely center on the division of powers, with Mr. Trump’s attorneys contending that imprisoning a legitimately elected president would constitute a court branch intrusion on executive branch powers.

He could also attempt a self-pardon or sentence modification on the federal charges alone, which would uphold his conviction but spare him from prison time. In either case, the president would have exercised extraordinary presidential power, and the question of whether a “self pardon” was lawful would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

Alternatively, according to Professor Chemerinsky, President Biden might pardon Mr. Trump as he was leaving on the grounds that “the people have spoken and I need to pardon him so he can govern.”.

However, since the president lacks the authority to pardon state charges, that would not apply to the cases in New York or Georgia.

What happens if he is elected while the case is still pending?

Again, no one knows, particularly when it comes to the New York and Georgia cases.

In the two federal cases, a likely outcome would be that a Trump-appointed attorney general would withdraw the charges.

The Justice Department does not indict sitting presidents, a policy outlined in a 1973 memo, during the Nixon era. It has never had reason to develop a policy on what to do with an incoming president who has already been indicted. But the rationale for not indicting sitting presidents — that it would interfere with their ability to perform their duties — applies just as well in this hypothetical scenario.

“The reasons why we wouldn’t want to indict a sitting president are the reasons we wouldn’t want to prosecute a sitting president,” said Professor Chemerinsky, who has disagreed with the department’s reasoning. “My guess is, if the Trump prosecution were still ongoing in some way and Trump were elected, the Justice Department — which would be the Trump Justice Department — would say, ‘We’re following the 1973 memo. ’”.

Like so much else here, this would be legally untested, and it is impossible to say what the Supreme Court would do if the question reached it.

In its Clinton v. Jones ruling in 1997, the court allowed a lawsuit against President Bill Clinton to proceed. But that case was civil, not criminal, and it was filed by a private citizen, not by the government itself.

Charlie Savage contributed reporting.