It so happens that exactly 10 years ago, almost exactly (it was September instead of April like now), my collaboration with ilFattoQuotidiano.it in the blog made available to me for my interventions. In the second, sent by me from Texas, I described the case of a Republican politician – Tom DeLay – very important at the time: he had just had to leave the chair of speaker of American Congress (a position roughly equivalent to that of our presidents of the Chambers), and he too had been indicted for “improper use of money reserved for specific political activities”. Instead, he had used them in a different way, forcing those who had to judge him to consider this use in the same way as the “money laundering” or the laundering of dirty money, a very common crime among mafias all over the world. This is the title given to that article: “Usa, if the politician is at the top, the sentence becomes exemplary” because it described the case of a high-level politician, “caught” with his hands in the bag and initiated by the County Court of Travis, Texas, to the prisons.
In the title there was really all my admiration (and perhaps even a little envy) for the severity of the Texan magistrates in judging and then condemning a “piece of 90” of American politics; at the time the confrontation with the Italian judicial situation was desperate, with Prime Minister Berlusconi still grappling with his ingenious invention of “Flower Flower”used for her “after-work relaxation”, which she shared as a prize with some of her young and promising political students.
The “poor” DeLay, after the sentence issued by a popular jury and the sentence to three years in prison decided by the judge, was handcuffed and taken to prison, dressed in the typical “orange prison overalls”. It is true that there is little left, because in a few days his lawyers brought the bail to get him out immediately and presented the Appeal for it to be judged again. It went well for him because three years later the new popular jury acquitted him, but if he were convicted again he would have suffered a longer prison sentence.
Although the DeLay and Trump cases are also similar in the main crime (the use of “political” money destined for a political activity specified in the attribution mandate, but used by them in completely different activities), the assimilation of this “distraction ” of use to the far more serious crime of “laundering dirty money” in any case makes this a very serious crime in popular opinion, the effects of which, however, are often unpredictable when the decision rests on the guilt or innocence of the accused it is a popular jury.
But in the US each state has its own laws which can also differ greatly in terms of criminal law. In Texas, for example, guilt or innocence in these crimes is decided precisely by the popular jury, drawn by lot from among the population. And it happened to me too, a couple of times, in McKinney County (neighboring Dallas, to be called to join the jury of minor cases). But the case involving Trump will come judged in New York in the Borough of Manhattan, and professional judges will judge him, not the people.
With the popularity he still has among the people, it would almost certainly have been better for him to be tried in Texas, considering that in that state about 70% of voters vote Republicanhe would have had an excellent chance of being judged by his “aficionados” (fans).
If a first-degree conviction were to arrive, it would certainly “skip” Trump’s possibility of participating in the next presidential elections in 2024 because even asking for a second judgment he would not be able to carry out his electoral campaign and probably would not even be nominated by the Republican party itself. In case of acquittal in the second instance he could instead participate in the subsequent elections but he would have to wait for 2028, and perhaps he would already be a “little mature”, as he is now Biden.
Finally, in the event of a second-degree conviction, Trump would still have the trump card up his sleeve Supreme Court (unless one of the six current republican judges dies or resigns, of which three are nominated by him) because his appeal for a “superior” judgment or an “exceptional pardon” would find a majority there overwhelming in his favor (6 against 3) and could therefore obtain a “supreme pardon verdict” very useful for him to avoid prison.