President Donald Trump became the first former commander in chief to be convicted of a crime a year ago, and that guilty verdict has shaped policy in his second administration and anchors a GOP campaign against “lawfare” to prevent future prosecutions.
A New York jury’s guilty verdict on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments Trump allegedly made to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, which Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued was in violation of campaign finance laws, provided Trump with the opportunity to campaign for a second term from the courtroom amid his claims of political persecution.
It has also helped inspire Trump’s campaign against so-called lawfare now that he is president again.
The first anniversary of Trump’s conviction on May 30, 2024, will be remembered differently by “insiders and outsiders,” according to Ronald Reagan biographer Craig Shirley.
“The insiders will say that Trump spit the hook and justice was not served, but the outsiders will say the whole thing was a scam and the insiders cannot be trusted and Trump beat the corrupt establishment,” Shirley told the Washington Examiner.
New York-based Republican strategist Evan Siegfried agreed, contending Bragg’s criminal case not only helped Trump with his base, but so did New York Attorney General Letitia James‘s civil fraud lawsuit against him — not to mention former special counsel Jack Smith‘s federal election interference and classified documents investigations into the president, including the FBI‘s raid of Mar-a-Lago, in addition to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis‘s racketeering prosecution in Georgia.
In fact, Bragg’s case was considered the weakest of the indictments Trump faced, and experts had criticized the Democratic district attorney for not demonstrating deference to Smith before his trial became the only one to reach a verdict before Trump’s election win effectively put an end to the rest.
“Bragg, himself, he appeared to drop the case a few years earlier and then he picked it back up because he got criticism from the Left,” Siegfried told the Washington Examiner. “I don’t think if the defendant or the target of the investigation had been somebody other than Donald Trump, that there would have even been an indictment.”
But he added of the president: “It was, at the end of the day, a massive boon to him.”
For Siegfried, that was because Trump “standing up to the establishment” appealed to his supporters, who believed he would stand up for them too. Regarding swing or independent voters, the president was advantaged because “we had been litigating him and what he did or didn’t do for the four years that he had been out of office,” according to the strategist.
“It took away a vital attack line from [replacement 2024 Democratic nominee former Vice President Kamala] Harris that would have been effective if we had waited to start the conversation until, you know, say beginning of the fall last year as opposed to January 2021,” he said.
The White House connects the actions by Bragg and New York Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the hush money case, with present-day rulings by district court judges to thwart Trump’s executive agenda.
“The American people overwhelmingly voted against lawfare and the politicization of the justice system when they re-elected President Trump,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said. “The actions of the corrupt and malign judge, attorney general, and radical attorneys who attempted to imprison President Trump for life mark a dark day in history that must never be repeated.”
“Unfortunately, radical leftist judges continue their lawfare insanity with unconstitutional nationwide injunctions and ongoing efforts to obstruct the President’s agenda, perpetuating the constitutional crisis the President endured during the campaign,” Fields added.
Public polling captures a range of opinions concerning Bragg’s case.
A Politico poll conducted last year after Trump’s conviction found that about one-fifth of respondents told pollsters the guilty verdict was important to how they would vote in November’s election and that it made them less likely to support the president, in comparison to 6% of respondents who said it was important but that it made them more likely to cast a ballot for him.
Simultaneously, the same poll found that about one-third of respondents disagreed that the conviction was the result of “a fair and impartial judicial process.” Another 29% told pollsters former President Joe Biden was “directly involved” in Bragg’s decision to bring the case against Trump, while 36% thought that it was the Justice Department. Forty-three percent agreed it was brought to boost Biden.
Regardless of public sentiment related to Bragg’s case, Trump’s feelings are well-known.
Shortly after returning to power in January, Trump delivered an address in DOJ’s Great Hall in March, the first time a commander in chief has done so since former President Barack Obama in 2014.
“As we begin a proud new chapter in the chronicles of American justice, we’re turning the page on four long years of corruption, weaponization, and surrender to violent criminals,” Trump said at the time. “We’re restoring fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitution rule of law.”
During his hourlong remarks, Trump underscored how the 2024 election was a mandate for him to embark on a “far-reaching investigation into the corruption of our system” to “expose their egregious crimes and severe misconduct” after promising during the campaign to be his supporters’ “retribution.”
To that end, Trump has directed the Justice Department to rid itself of any prosecutors who brought charges with respect to him, with a “special project” to investigate attorneys who had worked on cases involving Jan. 6 and a “weaponization working group,” spearheaded by Ed Martin, to probe state and federal officials who had looked into Trump, among other issues.
Trump has issued a presidential memorandum revoking the security clearances of lawyers at the firm Covington & Burlington who were part of Smith’s cases against Trump. He has also signed an executive order directing the same for those at Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison who represented 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and opposed those accused of Jan. 6 crimes, respectively.
The executive actions additionally ordered the federal government to terminate any contracts with the firms and prohibit employees from entering federal buildings.
Other firms targeted include Jenner & Block and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for their connection to another former special counsel, Robert Mueller, as well as Elias Law Group for its advocacy of Democratic causes, such as the Trump-Russia dossier, and Susman Godfrey for defending Dominion Voting Systems. Targeted individuals include Bragg and James.
Trump later rescinded an order against Paul Weiss after the firm offered $40 million in free legal services and to end its diversity programs, one of nine firms that have made similar agreements with the president amounting to almost $1 billion in pro bono legal services.
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, the Elias Law Group, and Susman Godfrey are challenging their actions in court.
“This Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,” U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon wrote this week in WilmerHale’s case. “Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!”
Trump supporters, including former White House chief political strategist Steve Bannon and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, have implored Trump to take his campaign against lawfare even further by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate any wrongdoing.
There is also support in Congress, including from the likes of Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC), who has been leading the charge against lawfare on Capitol Hill.
“We’ve seen rogue prosecutors weaponize the legal system to target Presidents, Vice Presidents, and public officials for political gain,” Fry told the Washington Examiner. “This kind of lawfare doesn’t just hurt individuals — it undermines our democracy by deterring leaders from making challenging decisions and discouraging qualified Americans from serving in public office.”
He continued: “The Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025 would get us one step closer to ensuring those who have served our country at the highest levels have the ability to move politically motivated cases out of biased state courts and into a fairer federal justice system.”
But Bud Cummins, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Arkansas chairman of Trump’s 2016 campaign, a whip for the president at that election’s Republican National Convention, and a member of his transition team that cycle, advised caution as he precedes with his vendetta.
“He must ensure that his personal feelings do not influence charging decisions at the DOJ,” Cummins told the Washington Examiner. “Prosecutors should focus on real criminal violations instead of targeting individuals.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Meanwhile, Bragg has not encountered many political consequences for his case against Trump other than having his security clearance pulled. Since his prosecution of Trump, he has tried to distance himself from his progressive record and, instead, has focused on his “tough on crime” bona fides. He is likely to be reelected later this year after a primary next month.
Trump was sentenced with an unconditional discharge in Bragg’s case last July. The president is expected to appeal that decision, despite it amounting to a dismissal of the matter.