Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Donald Trump
How Trump won – and what it means for the world
America has spoken. Donald Trump will become president of the United States again. And I can’t say that I’m surprised.
This election comes at a time when people all over the world are unhappy with where their countries are going, and they don’t trust their political institutions to right the ship. Some of that is a product of the deepening geopolitical recession, which is in part driven by a backlash against globalization and the globalist elites who promoted their own economic and political interests at the expense of their populations. Some of it has to do with the economic and social disruption caused by post-pandemic surges in inflation and immigration.
As a result, what was historically an electoral advantage in democracies has become a liability in the current cycle: incumbency. Over the past year, most incumbents around the globe have either been forced out of office or seriously underperformed at the ballot box (e.g., in the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, Austria, India, South Africa, etc.). Those who haven’t faced voters yet are deeply unpopular and expected to lose power soon (e.g., Canada, Germany, Norway, etc.).
The fact that Kamala Harris couldn’t escape this fate after four years as vice president to an unpopular administration was therefore hardly unexpected. No party has ever retained the White House when incumbent approval is as low as it is. Over 70% believe the country is on the wrong track, and Americans have little confidence in their government’s handling of the top issues they care about: inflation and immigration.
Sure, inflation – the average rate at which prices in the economy increase over time – has come way down from its pandemic-induced highs and is now near the Fed’s target. But prices themselves are still high owing to years of above-target inflation, and those prices aren’t coming down absent a recession (not to mention the fact that Trump’s plans promise to increase inflation). Fair or not, the party in power gets blamed for that. Similarly, illegal immigration has also been coming down, but crossings are still at elevated levels, and most illegal immigrants find ways to stay in the country. Many illegal immigrants also moved (or were moved) from red states to blue states, making the issue more important to more of the country than before.
Democrats had hoped to counter these headwinds with messages about access to abortion, the economy, and Trump’s threat to democracy and general unfitness for office. But a problem got in their way: a hyperpolarized information environment that makes it difficult for either side to reach across the aisle to the other half of the country. There are two radically different information spaces in the US, and the gap between these algorithmically boosted, media-driven bubbles is only growing. It’s increasingly difficult to have a single conversation on any policy issue, let alone to find compromise on solutions, when we don’t even agree on basic facts about what the problems are. That’s a very dysfunctional place to be for our civic democracy.
Ultimately, though, the American people looked at the two candidates and found Trump’s message more compelling, and they handed him as resounding a national victory as either candidate could’ve hoped for in today’s polarized environment. Trump shattered his previous ceiling of national support and made gains across the board relative to 2020. He is on track to sweep every swing state and become the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years on the back of a broad-based shift to the right in almost every geography – from rural areas to my very own New York City – and with nearly every demographic group, including young, female, Black, and Hispanic voters.
The Republican Party also took control of the Senate, with at least 52 and as many as 56 seats in the 100-seat chamber – enough to confirm Trump’s appointees, but not enough to get away with repealing the legislative filibuster or confirming obviously unqualified nominees. Republicans are favored to win a narrow House majority, too, though the exact margin may not be known for several weeks due to slow counting in states like California and close races elsewhere. A unified government – along with an already friendly judiciary – will make it significantly easier for Trump to enact his domestic policy priorities, from tax cuts and defense spending increases to immigration overhauls.
And if you think Trump’s return will have a profound impact on the United States (fact-check: true), it will matter even more for the rest of the world.
The biggest loser is Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly said he will end the war there in 24 hours. Of course, what he really means is that he wants to freeze the conflict along the current territorial lines, with Russia de facto getting to keep the land it has conquered. The war is already going badly for the Ukrainians, with Western military and economic support past its peak. Trump will try to unilaterally cut a cease-fire deal with Zelensky and President Vladimir Putin even before the lame-duck period ends, using military aid to Kyiv as leverage over both sides without coordinating with America’s European allies. If Trump calls Zelensky first and demands a cease-fire (and the de facto cession of territory), and Zelensky refuses, the ball will then shift to Putin’s court.
Regardless of the election outcome, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate sooner or later. The difference is that Harris would have coordinated that negotiating position with Ukraine and the EU. Trump doesn’t want to be responsible for “losing” Ukraine, nor does he take issue with Ukrainian self-defense. But he thinks Ukraine’s defense should be paid for primarily by the countries that have the biggest stake in it: the Europeans. Trump’s bargaining approach may succeed at ending the war … or it may not.
Either way, Europe will have a big problem on its hands. Trump’s Ukraine policy will put a lot of strain on the trans-Atlantic relationship. The Europeans, many of whom are already struggling economically, will also be facing higher tariffs from the Trump administration. Will they take a stronger, more consolidated position on Ukraine, or will they fragment? Will they continue to align closely with the US on trade with China, or will they start to hedge more? Will the European Union crack under the pressure, or will it be galvanized by Trump to finally build a stronger, more strategically autonomous union? Those are all huge question marks.
Then there’s the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was already riding high politically on the back of a string of military wins. He was a big winner yesterday as well, as he can expect greater support from Trump than he could have from Harris. The vice president was not going to end the special relationship with Israel, but Trump is going to make even more of a push to support the Israelis and the Gulf States – another group of winners. Trump and Netanyahu are also aligned in their enmity toward Iran. Will Trump’s blank check embolden Bibi to take even more aggressive actions in the region, potentially against Iranian nuclear facilities? That’s a very dangerous situation that bears close watching.
And let’s not forget China. The world’s second-largest economy is already underperforming, and Beijing is feeling increasingly defensive about the tariff threats coming from hawks like former Trump trade czar Robert Lighthizer. The Chinese are going to be frantically trying to establish back-channels to China-friendly Trump allies like Elon Musk, hoping they can facilitate a less confrontational relationship. Will Trump support that, or will his hawks get the upper hand and push for an even more confrontational approach? Beijing will move cautiously and slowly in this environment.
To be sure, just as he did in his first term, Trump will be able to get some foreign policy wins just by virtue of being the president of the most powerful country in the world. But the potential for things to go sideways is much greater in this environment. Geopolitics are in for a volatile and unpredictable ride, and the United States is about to become the epicenter of it.
So take a deep breath and strap in, folks. It’s going to get bumpy.
- Trump's plans for policy & personnel - GZERO Media ›
- Global leaders scramble to align with Trump - GZERO Media ›
- GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: 2024's top 10 most quotable moments - GZERO Media ›
- Unpacking the biggest global threats of 2025 - GZERO Media ›
- Top Risks 2025: America's role in the crumbling global order - GZERO Media ›
- From Davos: How global leaders are grappling with Trump’s return - GZERO Media ›
- At Davos, all eyes are on Trump - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's Davos address sets up big shifts in US strategy - GZERO Media ›
- What Donald Trump's second term will mean for the US economy - GZERO Media ›
- Is Europe ready to embrace Trump's return to power? - GZERO Media ›
- Why the US-Ukraine minerals deal changed - GZERO Media ›
EXCLUSIVE: Iran VP denies plot to kill Trump
Donald Trump on Wednesday accused Iran of being behind plots to kill him.
Citing information reportedly given to him a day earlier by US intelligence, he said, “If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country, in this case, Iran, that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens. We're going to blow it to smithereens.”
There have, of course, been two known plots to kill Trump, one in July and one earlier this month.
But what do Iran’s leaders have to say about the matter?
“We don’t send people to assassinate people,” Iran’s Vice President for Strategic Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif told GZERO Media President Ian Bremmer on Wednesday during an interview for our nationally televised program GZERO World.
“I think that’s a campaign ploy in order to get former President Trump out of the not-so-favorable situation he’s in in the elections,” he said.
He also maintained that Iran doesn’t intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
“It’s not for me to decide who is going to win in the American elections. That’s for the American people to decide. And Iran doesn’t have a preference in this election,” Zarif said.
Pressed by Bremmer about allegations that Iran was behind recent efforts to hack into US presidential campaigns, Zarif conceded that while the attacks may have originated from within the Islamic Republic, it was “hackers operating in Iran,” but “not on behalf of Iran.”
“We are ourselves victims of hacking,” he said.
Watch the clip here, and tune in next week for Ian Bremmer’s full interview with Zarif in the next episode of GZERO World, airing on PBS stations around the country. Check local listings.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Robert F. Kennedy Jr at Supreme Court in Mineola, New York to appeal a ballot suit.
What can RFK Jr. do for Donald Trump?
Third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expected to exit the presidential race and endorse Donald Trump at his rally in Arizona on Friday. Trump is also holding a rally in Phoenix today, and the choice of location is no accident: Arizona is famous for its independent voters, whom both Democrats and Republicans are desperate to win over ahead of an inevitably close election.
Potential quid pro quo. On Tuesday, Kennedy’s running mate, Nicole Shanahan, told an interviewer the campaign was weighing whether to “join forces” with Trump and suggested that Kennedy would do an “incredible job” as secretary of health and human services, a controversial choice given that Kennedy is a vocal supporter of the anti-vaccine movement. Trump later confirmed that he would probably “consider” appointing Kennedy to some role.
Election impact. Five percentof the voting population prefers Kennedy, and an August NPR/PBS/Marist poll found that that breaks down into 2% of Democrats, 3% of Republicans, and 12% of independents. Since voters who identify as Republican or Democrat would likely vote for their party’s preferred candidate in a two-way race, most of the votes up for grabs are independents.
“Trump will benefit marginally from Kennedy’s exit and endorsement,” says Eurasia Group’s US analyst Noah Daponte-Smith,as he will “likely gain one or two percentage points, but unlikely anything more. Many of Kennedy’s supporters either won’t vote or will vote for another third-party option.”
The US is the world's most dysfunctional major democracy
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I want to talk about US elections and democracy.
This has been the year 2024 of elections all over the world. And most of them are going just fine. I mean, pretty much almost all of them. Okay, Russia is not a democracy. So you shouldn't really talk about elections because it's not like the people actually have a choice. It's Putin or it's Putin. But everywhere else, we've had elections that are free and fair and peaceful, and they've led to stable transitions, whether they're voting people out, or whether they're clipping their power or whether they're doubling down on them. And that's been true in Indonesia and Mexico and South Africa, India, the European Parliament. And soon it will be true in the coming weeks, first in France and in the United Kingdom. So it's not like democracy all over the world is in crisis or is about to fall apart. It's not like most countries can't have normal elections.
But the United States is an outlier. it's of course, the most powerful country in the world, but it's also the most dysfunctional major democracy. It's a democracy in crisis, and it's getting worse. In 2020, of course, there was an election that was very seriously contested. Former President Trump claimed the vote was rigged. It wasn't. But he continues to push forward that narrative. And it has been supported by pretty much the entire Republican Party leadership because he's in charge of the party and as a consequences believed by a strong majority of Republican voters. That is unique among advanced industrial democracies.
And indeed, you see Trump continuing to say the only way the election could be legitimate this time around is if he wins. If he loses, it's obviously rigged. That's clearly problematic for a former president and a presidential candidate in a democracy. But it's worse than that because this time around, you have questions of legitimacy that are beyond the vote, but about the nature of the election itself. Trump's view, whether he believes it or not, is sort of immaterial, but certainly it's what he is promoting, is that the indictments against him, the criminal cases against him, now the 34 convictions against him are politicized by the Democratic Party, by President Biden to make it impossible for him to win a legitimate election. In other words, using the political power of the incumbent party and leadership to delegitimize the election.
That's what he's saying. Again, it's not true, but to the extent that that is the case that implies that, if Trump loses, it's not just because of a rigged vote, it's because of a rigged system. It's because, you know, he was undermined by these illegitimate cases, by the criminalization of the entire judiciary, the capture of the one branch of government by another branch of government, and it's politicization. So that that's the way that Trump is running, Biden is running, saying that Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy, that the country could become authoritarian, that you could lose your democracy if he becomes president. So everything is at stake.
And also the fact that he has been impeached twice, the fact that he has faced these indictments, including convictions, means that he is illegitimate, shouldn't be allowed to run for president, never mind be elected president. That is the Democratic view that Trump is not legitimate as a candidate. So it goes beyond who wins the vote.
It's the reality that Trump and Biden are now portraying the other as illegitimate in terms of the way that the election is being conducted itself. The very reality of a democratic election in that regard no longer holds for the messaging coming from the Democratic and Republican leadership. So is this about Trump? And the answer is only partially, he is a major symptom of the dysfunction and the crisis that US democracy is presently facing.
But it is also very important to recognize a deeper problem, which is that, many Americans believe that their country, my country, is no longer a representative democracy. That powerful, moneyed, special interests, across the board, whether we talk about the defense complex or, pharmaceutical companies or big finance or, you name it, the NRA or the teachers lobby or the police lobby or you name it, that powerful interests are able to capture the political system policies, the regulatory system, and ensure that government does not reflect the interests of the average American.
And it is true that the US is far more captured by special interests. And you see this with the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court. You see this with the ungodly amount of money that goes into campaigning for American elections from the presidency all the way down to the House of Representatives. You see this across the board in the way policy can and cannot be made in the United States.
And this is why you have people talking about a uniparty or the blob in foreign policy or even the deep state. And a lot of this is conspiracy theory, and it's certainly not true that there was a shadowy group of people that are actually forming, you know, sort of policy and controlling the president. But the reality, in a sense, is more disturbing than that. It is that the system is so structurally weak and so controlled by money and power of people that are not voted for office that it feels like an non-representative, non-democracy to large numbers of Americans who no longer share the values that America was founded on. They don't see that the country reflects that.
And to the extent the US is unique among G7 countries in being unrepresentative in governance of its people, you see a lot of that in Trump support, that people out there want someone who is angering the establishment, angering the mainstream media, someone that says he's going to break the system, he's going to bring a corrupt system to heel. And certainly you see a little bit of that in Trump's stated policies, like on wanting to end wars, for example, and why Trump doesn't support free trade and instead wants more subsidy, more industrial policy in the US, Trump's China policy, which precedes Biden's China policy but is largely similar, focused much more on that. But of course, it's also true that Trump's “drain the swamp” mantra only makes sense if you don't look at a lot of Trump's domestic policies.
I mean, Trump was the leader in my life who was most aligned to ensuring that rich people get richer, was most aligned with big finance and hedge funds and major corporations and big oil and fast food and manufacturing and, you know, pro-dumping all of these things. I mean, you look at his cabinet with Sonny Perdue as the secretary of agriculture, and Elizabeth DeVos as the secretary of education, and on and on and energy and treasury and you name it.
What you see the reality of Trump's cabinet was the swampiest, of pro special interests, pro very powerful people. And that's why Trump was so welcomed when the Business Council last week invited him to go and speak, as soon as he said yes, (and Biden was invited too, didn't make it, sent an representative), immediately far more CEOs, went to watch. Why? I mean, one, because they want to make sure that they're connected with someone who can be president. But two, because a lot of Trump's policies, will benefit the wealthiest and the most powerful people in the country. And so in that regard, you know, Trump can throw things like, you know, build the wall, identity politics, anti-DEI. But the reality is that the most powerful will do the best, at least in the short term. Under a Trump administration, that's the revealed preference we've seen, with the alignment that he has with those that give the big money.
So, anyway, that is a little bit for me, a little bit of the state of democracy is challenged as it is. I'm not looking forward to this election, in part because it's horrible to see your country go through this identity crisis and not align itself with the values that I think a lot of people around the world, and a lot of people in the US would like to see America do a better job with. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Will Trump's criminal conviction cost him votes?
Just days after former President Donald Trump’s historic felony conviction, Ian Bremmer sits down with the New Yorker’s Susan Glasser and former US Attorney Preet Bharara to discuss the impact of the verdict conviction on the 2024 election and democracy itself.
What does Donald Trump’s historic criminal conviction mean for the 2024 election and for democracy itself? As the first US president to be convicted of a crime, Trump’s 34 felony counts have stirred significant political and legal turmoil, with many in his party faithful choosing the former president over the justice system. "The GOP's revisionist history on the trial has already begun," Glasser tells Bremmer. Bharara also underscores the trial’s legitimacy, stating, "It was an open and fair proceeding. There was a judge who ruled often for the prosecution, but often as well for Donald Trump's side."Bharara addresses the allegations of political motivation behind the trial, telling Ian, "The accusations that some folks on the Trump side are making about how this was a politicized witch hunt, it was preordained, all of that" is a dangerous game. Bharara also highlights the gravity of the situation, saying, "There are people on the progressive side, on the Biden side who think that democracy is in danger. I'm one of those people." Glasser echoes this concern, reflecting on Trump's impact on elections, "What Trump tried to do in 2020 as well as 2016 was to nullify the votes of an election and therefore of the people, the masses' votes, not the individuals."
Both guests underscore the critical crossroads at which American democracy stands and the profound consequences of Trump's conviction for the upcoming election. Whether or not Trump wins in November is an open question. So, too, is the fate of our democratic institutions.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Will Trump's criminal conviction ruin his campaign - or American democracy? Insights from Susan Glasser and Preet Bharara
Listen: On this episode of the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer discusses the political and legal implications of Donald Trump’s felony conviction for the 2024 election and for democracy itself with the New Yorker’s Susan Glasser and former US Attorney Preet Bharara.
He’s the first US president to be convicted of a crime. Donald Trump’s 34 felony counts have upended the 2024 Presidential election (for now) and exposed the vulnerability of core democratic institutions like the justice system.
"The GOP's revisionist history on the trial has already begun," The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser tells Bremmer. Former US Attorney Preet Bharara also underscores the trial’s legitimacy, stating, "It was an open and fair proceeding. There was a judge who ruled often for the prosecution, but often as well for Donald Trump's side."
"The [Republican] party” Glasser adds, “has essentially mortgaged itself to the fate of one individual."
Both guests underscore the critical crossroads at which American democracy stands and the profound consequences of Trump's conviction for the upcoming election. Whether or not Trump wins in November is an open question. So, too, is the fate of our democratic institutions.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
TRANSCRIPT: Will Trump's criminal conviction ruin his campaign - or American democracy? Insights from Susan Glasser and Preet Bharara
Ian Bremmer:
Hello and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. This is where you'll find extended versions of my interviews on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer and today, you've heard the news, you've seen the headlines, you probably already have an opinion, but we have to talk about it. Former President Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts in a New York criminal case about hush-money payments on the eve of the 2016 election.
It's the first time any US president, current or former, has been found guilty of a crime. And of course, everyone is asking how this will impact the presidential election in November, but the truth is, no one knows. Political forecasting after unprecedented news is a recipe for regret.
More important than what the verdict means for Republicans or capital D Democrats, is what it means for our already-fragile, lower case “d” democracy. As historic as Trump's conviction is, the political response, even more extraordinary. Republican leadership is uniformly calling it an illegitimate witch hunt and blatant political persecution. Democrats say justice has been served and the verdict a sign the system works.
Can the Constitution withstand this kind of stress test? Are our democratic institutions at risk of falling apart? I'm joined today by former US attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and political columnist for The New Yorker, Susan Glasser. Let's get to it.
Joining me to discuss the Trump verdict and the implications for our election, Preet Bharara and Susan Glasser, delighted to see you both. Preet, let me start with you. So much of the backlash to this verdict from the GOP has been about the trial itself being illegitimate. Should this case have been brought in the way that it was by the district attorney, something you have a lot of experience with?
Preet Bharara:
Yeah. Look, the case was brought after a lot of deliberation on the part of the district attorney. The accusations that some folks on the Trump side are making about how this was a politicized witch hunt, it was preordained, all of that misses a very important historical fact. And that is when Alvin Bragg came into office, there had been a number of prosecutors, including his predecessor, Cyrus Vance, who were building a case with respect to financial fraud against Trump and his organization, the inflation of assets and the deflation of assets when it suited him.
Mark Pomerantz and another outside lawyer had developed the case. They ended up quitting with some fanfare when Alvin Bragg refused to pursue that case. So, if Alvin Bragg came in with an agenda to get Donald Trump, he had a packaged case that he could have brought that very seasoned prosecutors who'd served both as federal prosecutors and state prosecutors had wrapped up in a bow for him to do. But he thought, in exercise of his discretion using his judgment, that that was not appropriate. And this other case was one that after some period of time he decided to bring.
And by the way, it was an open and fair proceeding. There was a judge who ruled often for the prosecution, but often as well for Donald Trump's side, 12 jurors who were screened. And by the way, the defense got to participate in this election of that jury, found him guilty pretty definitively and pretty quickly, and there will now be an opportunity for an appeal. So, all the hallmarks of a free and open rule of law proceeding were met here.
Ian Bremmer:
Should the charges have been raised from a misdemeanor to a felony? How unusual is that? Is there any view in your sensibility that that decision itself was politicized?
Preet Bharara:
No, I don't think so. It is provided for by law. There's a misdemeanor statute and there's a felony mechanism in that statute as well. And that's done on a regular basis. Maybe these particular facts involving a further violation of law relating to an election or the promotion of someone's election by unlawful means. I'm not sure if that's a particular scenario has ever been brought before, but Donald Trump is a particularly interesting and unusual defendant and miscreant in this proceeding and in other proceedings.
And look, there's going to be an appeal. The people on the Trump side are saying it's a foregone conclusion that this conviction will be overturned. I don't think that's the case. The same way that I don't think it's the case that it's 100% guaranteed that the conviction will be affirmed, one of which you mentioned, and we'll see how a court of appeals thinks about that. And ultimately if there's a constitutional question, which I'm not sure there is, but if there's a constitutional question-
Ian Bremmer:
Then it would go to the Supreme Court.
Preet Bharara:
Go to the Supreme Court.
Ian Bremmer:
So, you think that the appeal process not only is serious and legitimate, but it could well be overturned on appeal. That's certainly a possibility in your mind.
Preet Bharara:
It's unusual, it's unlikely. We had a pretty good track record in the Southern District of New York. We did not win an affirmance of every single conviction. There were a couple of times, a few times if you're pursuing a case vigorously and you have a docket of cases that are aggressive appropriately, sometimes judges on the appeals court will find that there was an instruction that was flawed, or some evidence came in that shouldn't have come in and they send it back for a retrial or they overturn it permanently. So, it's never possible to say that there's no possibility of a reversal. But by the way, for people who are interested in the political clock here and the timetable, there's no way that any of that's going to happen anytime before the election.
Ian Bremmer:
Right. And one thing that is going to happen before the election of course is sentencing. Do you have any quick view on what the likely sentence is going to be? I assume you don't think there's going to be serious jail time.
Preet Bharara:
The violations don't call for serious jail time. There are factors on both sides. On the one hand, he's a 77-year-old man who may not be a recidivist for whom this is a first-time offense. On the other hand, it's serious misconduct, the way it was characterized by the prosecution. Some of the conduct happened while he was sitting in the Oval Office as Commander in Chief and President of the United States. He has shown no remorse. He has violated the gag order 10 times. So those are factors in favor of some time of incarceration.
What I think is pretty clearly the case though is even if the judge decides that some period of incarceration is appropriate, three months, six months, eight months, whatever, that he will hold that in abeyance and give him bail pending appeal. Right? Because I think he will find that there's a significant enough basis to allow Trump, and it also solves the problem of his getting criticized for putting a major party candidate in prison, and I think he wants to avoid that. And so, he can have his cake and eat it too by imposing a prison sentence but holding off on it until a court of appeals weighs in on it.
Ian Bremmer:
Susan, appreciate your patience. I want to turn to you on the politics now. You wrote in your column last week that the GOP's revisionist history on the trial has already begun. Last Sunday Republican chair Lara Trump, yes related, berated Republican candidate Larry Hogan for calling on citizens to respect the judicial process. We've already seen congressional candidates use the verdict in their political ads. What do you make of all of this?
Susan Glasser:
This is a marker of the escalation that we're seeing in 2024. And so it's not just attacking the legitimacy of this specific trial or these specific charges against Donald Trump, but the immediate leap, and I should say clearly orchestrated in advance leap to a broader systemic attack, and not only that but rather than simply focus Trump and his supporters' ire on the New York prosecutor who brought these cases, immediately elevating it into and distorting it as if it were a federal issue in a federal case.
And I think that is certainly an ominous sign as far as what Trump might do were he to be re-elected to office. But even more broadly, I think it's a sign of where the Republican Party is at, that they have essentially mortgaged the party so completely to the fate of one individual that they're willing to tear down what remains of faith in our already teetering faith in institutions.
So, it strikes me that it's sometimes hard in this kind of year nine of the Trump era to say when we have crossed another line, but to me, I think we crossed another line. And the response to Larry Hogan, the former Republican governor of the very blue state of Maryland was very instructive. Hogan didn't have some big statement celebrating Trump's conviction. All he said was what in the past would've been essentially comforting mush like, "Yay, the system works, support the right to a jury trial," and nothing very interesting about it except that even that is too controversial in today's GOP.
Preet Bharara:
I think Susan makes excellent points and you can bet a lot of money that if the case had gone the other way, Alvin Bragg, like I did when I was US attorney, even though there would've been disappointment, even though they thought they brought a righteous and meritorious case, would've said, "We respect the jury's verdict." And it's one thing to criticize the judge, criticize the parties, criticize the press and the coverage, it's quite a different thing to start criticizing ordinary Americans who are pressed into the civic duty of jury deliberation and service.
And the second point I want to make is the other accusation that is being leveled, which is kind of far-fetched and outlandish, which is par for the course, about why Alvin Bragg brought the case and why he shouldn't have, is that it was all orchestrated by the puppeteer President of the United States, Joe Biden, which as everyone here knows, we have a thing called federalism. Alvin Bragg was not appointed like I was by the President of the United States but was elected by the people of Manhattan. He doesn't report to the president. He doesn't talk to the president. He doesn't take direction from the president. And the other thing that makes it very peculiar and odd is that we are to believe that Joe Biden pulled the puppet strings on Alvin Bragg to get the rule of law to be shaped in the way he wanted it to take down his rival when as we speak, literally as we speak, his own flesh and blood son is on trial in federal court.
Ian Bremmer:
On trial, Hunter Biden, which I want to get to. Yeah, absolutely.
Preet Bharara:
Yeah. I mean, so the courts won. And Joe Biden has not fired the special prosecutor. He hasn't tried to pardon his son. He hasn't tried to interfere in that. And so, the idea that he's directing Alvin Bragg and doing nothing to save the skin of his own son doesn't square.
Ian Bremmer:
No, it's on its face ludicrous. Susan, I mean given all of that, the points that you make and that Preet just added to, I mean we're not just talking about a small number of fringe Trump loyalists. Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, the number of Republicans that have questioned the politicization of the process is astonishing. I mean, if you didn't have Preet's legal expertise and you were just tuning in to watch what was happening, you wouldn't know who to believe. You'd say, "Wow, clearly these are very sensible and respected people who were saying that the process has broken down." That does feel unprecedented, doesn't it, Susan?
Susan Glasser:
Yeah. I mean, I think that it is unfortunate that you have a situation—well, first of all, the vast majority of voices that you're hearing from are… We're not in year one of the Trump MAGA phenomenon. These are folks who have willingly abandoned the truth again and again and again in order to support Donald Trump, the vast majority of the Republican elected officials you're hearing from. So, I think that's an important note. It's not like that these are respected independent voices for the most part. They have mortgaged themselves, their political future and their party to Donald Trump.
What's interesting is that the small, small minority of remaining Trump skeptics in the Republican Party, many of them have also questioned the verdict, although if you look, their statements have not nearly been so robust in saying that it was the system itself. I have not seen Mitt Romney or Susan Collins or Mitch McConnell say that Joe Biden secretly orchestrated a conspiracy plot to do it.
Now, that's the problem of course with the enablers who have facilitated the ongoing hold of Donald Trump over the Republican Party is that they essentially kind of participate to a certain extent in the continuing delegitimization of institutions on Trump's behalf. And I noted in that respect, and Preet did not. I'm curious what he thinks about this. Trump is not just saying, "I'm going to keep fighting. I'm going to issue an appeal. I'm going to exhaust every legal remedy to stay out of jail."
He has already said, and his allies like House Speaker Mike Johnson are demanding that the Supreme Court intervene and talking openly about the bias of the Supreme Court. And I find that to be, again you want to talk about a norm shattered, I cannot conceive of any response in our political system before the Trump era in which that would've been possible. Mike Johnson specifically said the other day that he knows personally many of the Supreme Court justices and he thinks they should remedy this injustice to Donald Trump. Trump himself is using his social media platform to demand that the Supreme Court intervene.
One of the obvious reasons for his panic over this being in state court rather than federal court is that were he to be reelected, he can't pardon himself at the state level, but I don't know, Preet, why you think he's immediately demanding it be elevated to the Supreme Court and whether there's any legitimate basis for the Supreme Court to look at this.
Preet Bharara:
There is not. Look, Donald Trump and his allies to some extent take advantage of the fact that they can say anything, they can talk about any procedure they want with the understanding that even people who know better will go along because who wants to defy the sitting President of the United States? There is no mechanism that I'm aware of that anybody that I've heard who I respect can think of to take a state court conviction in New York or any other state directly to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It's not done, doesn't happen. You got to go and exhaust your appeals process through the state court system, and then depending on if there's an issue of constitutional dimension or a split in some sense on a constitutional, then you take it to the Supreme Court.
Now, is that going to preclude Donald Trump from ordering his attorney to file some kind of extraordinary motion or writ to the Supreme Court? Probably not, but I don't think there's any That doesn't hold any water constitutionally or legally.
Ian Bremmer:
Now, Preet, I want to ask, you brought up the Hunter Biden trial. It is now just underway. Can you talk a little bit about the significance of that trial, the implications of it, both legal and political? Because I mean, on its basis, it doesn't seem to be, and we're talking about gun charges related to drug use, I mean, that's not really something that's super relevant to the presidency, and yet obviously these things are going to be conflated.
Preet Bharara:
Hunter Biden is a private citizen, has always been a private citizen. He's not the President of the United States. He's not running to be the President of the United States. He's getting all this attention because of his celebrity based on his connection by blood to the sitting President of the United States.
And it's extraordinary in the way that I described earlier that here you, I mean, in a million years, to be counterfactual for a moment, in a million years, can you imagine if Donald Trump got reelected and a Joe Biden appointed US attorney who was held over for some period of time, decided to indict and go to trial against Donald Trump Jr. that Donald Trump Sr. would stand idly by not comment on it, not pardon his son, not direct-
Ian Bremmer:
No. It's inconceivable. It's inconceivable.
Preet Bharara:
Inconceivable.
Ian Bremmer:
That's right, that's right.
Preet Bharara:
So when you ask what's the significance of it, that significance I think is being lost on people. The fact that Joe Biden is standing… The First Lady of the United States is in the courtroom with her son, with her and Joe Biden's son, to give moral support, not exercising any authority. He doesn't have any authority over Alvin Bragg, but he could absolutely give direction, as Donald Trump says, he would do and plans to do in terms of retribution against his political enemies if he were to go back into office.
Now, on the question of the seriousness of the charge, lots of people have commented that we have a series of gun laws in place. I prosecuted a number of them of illegal possession of a handgun. Most commonly that's brought if you're a prior convicted felon. By the way, incidental to this and the intersection of the Trump case and the Hunter Biden cases, Donald Trump now convicted cannot possess a firearm. So put that to the side for a moment. But most of the time those cases are brought if someone who's been convicted of a felony, state or federal, is in possession of a firearm. There's some other provisions as well, very, very seldom used across the country. If you are addicted to a substance or if you lie about your addiction or use of a substance, there's a provision of a statute that says that that's a violation of law.
What's also super interesting here that I haven't heard a lot talked about is you have a strange collection of bedfellows here. Ordinarily, right, the average progressive would say you have to enforce the gun laws very strictly. And of course, if someone's addicted to a substance and is dangerous and doesn't exercise judgment well, they should be prosecuted. That's standard operating procedure for the ideological side of the progressives.
By contrast, the average conservative who believes strongly in the Second Amendment would say, and there are challenges to other provisions of the statute right now wending their way through the Supreme Court, would say that is an overreach and just because you've been convicted of a crime, in the example I gave before, doesn't mean you should forever forfeit your constitutional right in the same way that a lot of people say just because you've been convicted of a crime, you shouldn't forfeit your right to vote forever and ever and ever. So the other significance of it is you can sort of tell where people are tribally as opposed to where they would be if this was an anonymous unknown garden variety defendant.
Susan Glasser:
It's very important to make the distinction between—these are the ultimate sort of asymmetrical cases. Donald Trump was accused of essentially distorting the 2016 election by paying this hush money to a former porn star. Hunter Biden is accused, private citizen is accused of owning a gun for 11 days and possibly lying on a form about it.
Now, I think you're right about the tribalism, absolutely, and it does strike me that Joe Biden has had terrible, terrible luck with his son. The timing of it is just, you couldn't even make this up, that literally while the Democrats finally get a couple days where they're focusing the lens squarely in this election for once not on Biden's age or what his record is in the country, but on Donald Trump and his fitness for office, and do they want a convicted felon in the White House, and then boom, two days later, Hunter Biden is on trial. The timing just is a reminder that Biden can't seem to catch a break.
It also goes to the fact that Hunter Biden, basically, they've had years of investigations and there was a bungled plea bargain in which he agreed to it and then withdrew when the federal prosecutors could not guarantee him that he would be safe from future other prosecutions. This is perhaps an example where the legal advice that Hunter Biden was given, and again, I-
Ian Bremmer:
... was not great, yeah.
Susan Glasser:
... can't speak to the validity of it, but it was in conflict certainly with his father's political necessity to not have a son on trial for federal gun charges when Donald Trump's criminality should be the big issue in the 2024 campaign from the point of view of Biden.
And so I just want to say though that we're talking a lot about the case itself in New York or the case itself now in Delaware, a lot of the incredibly overheated rhetoric that we are hearing from Republicans, which I think is very dangerous and is a harbinger of where a second Trump administration would go. But I also think it's important to pull back and to say, why is this happening?
No matter how much they spin me, I do not believe, and I don't think anyone should believe that Republicans or Donald Trump are happy about him being a convicted felon or that they think it's such a great thing for his campaign. If they thought it was such a great thing for his campaign, I think they would approach it very differently.
Ian Bremmer:
It's hard to say it's a great thing for his campaign, certainly in a very close race. Lots of people have consistently said that they are uncomfortable voting for a convict, for a convicted felon. And a lot of independents certainly say that, but we have also seen an extraordinary amount of money that's been raised by Trump on the back of this effort. This very coordinated campaign by Republicans to say, "This is a political hit job. It's a witch hunt. It's orchestrated by the president."
And then secondly, I mean, reveal preferences, Americans just don't seem to say that this case matters as much to them in how they vote and what they care about than issues that are closer to them on a day-to-day basis, like for example, inflation, like abortion, like the border. We're all sitting here talking about these unprecedented threats to the democratic system in the United States, which are clearly getting worse. The boundaries are eroding to prevent them from truly damaging permanently the American system. And yet either elites, the media and the citizenry don't seem to be taking it enormously seriously.
Susan Glasser:
I got to push back on that. I think that is the kind of cynical perspective, this idea that we're going to get into the media and elites bashing, Americans are perfectly... In the end, there's a long history that suggests that while issue polls are interesting and relevant, and certainly the economy you can argue has been a major driver of American elections, in the end, the history of modern presidential elections is that they are very much decided on the basis of perceptions around the personality of the candidates, number one.
Number two, it is not a media construction. It is not an elite construction to say... I find that to be really cynical actually. The idea that a regular American who is not a member of the media elite should not care that the possible President of the United States is going to be a convicted felon, I don't buy that. I think that's what Republicans want us to say. I think that they've spent a year coming up with a strategy where they would goose the numbers so that they had, "Oh, we had a big fundraising hall." In the end, I don't think that fundraising numbers in June are going to have any effect on the ultimate outcome of this presidential election.
I think that we're looking at a very close race because we have a very evenly divided country, and the question is really not what Americans in the aggregate think about this development of having a president who's a convicted felon. The very specific question is whether in the six or seven battleground states that are going to decide this election, there are sufficient number of concerned Republicans and/or Independents who simply cannot vote for Trump because he is a convicted felon.
Ian Bremmer:
So Susan, I mean, I understand. The media is the one group that I mentioned that you and I and Preet have some affiliation with, though I mean, I was also talking about voters. I was also talking about leaders, political leaders, corporate leaders. I mean again, reveal preferences as I see them at this stage in the election compared to other countries around the world is that threats to democracy don't seem to be the thing that's driving this election. It seems to me that other things are.
Susan Glasser:
No, no, I'm agreeing with you. I'm fascinated by that. And maybe, I mean what is your answer to why when you talk to corporate leaders, they're not more concerned?
Ian Bremmer:
Yeah. Yeah, I know. I mean, short-term-ism obviously is a piece of it. But a piece of it seems to be that nobody's all that worried. Maybe it's like the boy that cried wolf. I mean, Trump was already a president once for four years and democracy didn't fall apart and a lot of people had egg on face. And so a lot of people said January 6th was a coup. I don't believe it was actually attempted coup. I don't think that that was the right way to think about it. I don't think the US system was actually in danger the way it increasingly is this time around.
But I'm discussing this in part because here we are in the middle only five months away now from the election, soon people are going to start voting absentee, and most of them, it seems to me, aren't going to be voting on the issue that we're talking about right now, that we seem to think is very important. Preet, do you want to weigh in on this?
Preet Bharara:
There are people on the progressive side, on the Biden side who think the democracy's in danger. I'm one of those people. I care about institutions. I think people care less about institutions and less about process and less about principles than they care about outcome. I think we've become very, not just tribal, but the part of the tribalism that I think is showing a lot of force is the person on your side, whether it's abortion or trade or whatever else, and on the progressive side, the issues that they care about and the way in which some of this conversation is a little bit elite.
But I don't think that's a bad thing because I think our founding fathers were elite and lots of people on the right always invoke the founding fathers, which is a very elitist concept, right? The idea of democracy and institutions and separation of powers and political philosophy and political theory. That's elite subject matter. It's the backbone and foundation of the country. And I worry that some of that is being lost because nobody seems to care that much anymore. The processes are being subverted or being prejudiced in some way, or the peaceful transition to power was thwarted.
However, briefly, I disagree with your more sanguine view of that, Ian. That's a big deal. That's a gigantic deal, and I worry that people are less... I think it's worrisome the thing that you're pointing out that people seem less concerned about that because it's foundational. All the other things that you want, whether it's the freedom to bear arms or to have reproductive rights or anything else, all relies on a well-functioning, pluralistic democracy. And if you start talking about these as being only elitist thoughts, I think we're in big trouble.
There are people, whether you think they're right about this or not, who think the same of Joe Biden, who use the rhetoric of fascism and autocracy and authoritarian, which doesn't ring true to my ears, but there are people on the other side who say those exact same things about Joe Biden. So maybe it's a wash, maybe it's not. And I would like to hear someone intelligent explain that to me as well.
Susan Glasser:
You can see we've hit the kind of sensitive nerve of this 2024 election. And just, again, on the point about whether this is an elite preoccupation or not, I think it's actually at the core of the matter because it strikes me that what Trump tried to do and what this conviction is about, what he tried to do in 2020 as well as 2016 was to nullify the votes of an election, and therefore, of the people, the masses votes, not the individuals. Remember that millions and millions more Americans voted for Joe Biden in 2020, and by the way, millions more voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. And that is not an elite thing, but in fact, it is an attempt-
Ian Bremmer:
No, that's just the electoral system, yeah.
Susan Glasser:
But it's not just the electoral system. You're dismissing January 6th as sort of, I'm not sure what, but this was a direct effort to seek to stop the certification of the people's votes, both the millions of Americans who voted more for Biden than Trump, and also in the states, Biden's victory.
And what we came away from interviewing more than 300 officials, most of them Republican political appointees of Donald Trump in Trump's White House, was a very strong conclusion, more than I expected by the way when we started the book, Ian, that it wasn't about the solidity of the institutions or the idea that democracy held. It's that they were much more vulnerable and fragile, and that after the 2020 election, we were much closer than we thought we would be because it wasn't the institutions, it was one individual. We were one attorney general, one acting attorney general, one vice president, one chairman of the joint chiefs away from what would have been a coup on the constitutional order.
I don't know why it is that people find it too hard to remember that occurred only not even four years ago, but that is literally like an unthinkable thing. And having crossed that Rubicon, I think that the idea that we're just treating this as a normal election between two warring tribes with different ideologies is really, that's what history is going to remember about this moment, unfortunately.
Ian Bremmer:
I guess my broader point as someone who spends more time thinking about issues around the world than inside the United States is that this does feel like it is an election that in a properly functioning democracy, the issue that you've both just brought up should be the most important one. I mean, if the country itself, if its institutions, if the ability to hold a free and fair election and a transfer of power that is respected by the population is in question, that should be the most important thing. That happened in Brazil, for example, and the perpetrators are not allowed to run again as opposed to the United States.
I mean, Brazil, a middle-income economy that the Americans don't think about very much, turns out in some ways to have more resilient political institutions in response to this kind of threat than our own United States does. Perhaps that's the issue that I'm trying to get at and trying to understand how worried you think we should be about that.
Preet Bharara:
We've grown accustomed to the luxury of repeated, peaceful transfers of power. Things always work out for the United States of America. We're the greatest country in the world and have been for a very long time. The greatest country ever for a lot of reasons, notwithstanding the crises we find ourselves plunged into now.
And so there's a tendency on the part of some people, I think, when other people ring the bell and worry that you're overreacting. And my concern is that the rest of the folks are underreacting, and it's impossible. There is nothing that guarantees in the rule of law and the world order or by God's grace, if you believe in that, that just because the United States has been a great democracy, it will persist in being democratic. And just because we haven't before elected someone like Donald Trump, a deceitful populist who likes to pit people against each other, he's a different order of person, and I think that people are underestimating the pain and damage that will be caused to the country if he's re-elected.
And a part of that is because of perpetual American optimism I think that things always work out. We get into a recession, we get into a depression, we work our way out of it. The world is plunged into war. America comes to the rescue. America always is resilient and resolves to fix itself. And I just don't know that that faith is as well-placed as it used to be.
Ian Bremmer:
Susan, last word to you.
Susan Glasser:
Yeah. I mean, this is a powerful conversation, Ian, and I think your point about Brazil is a very important one. We may have a history that marks us as different than all the other countries in the world, but at the same time, I think the events of the last eight years have shown pretty clearly that we might not be as exceptional as we think we are. It's not an accident that there have been these kind of rise of far-right populism in so many countries around the world over the last few years.
There's a pretty clear playbook that shows that Trump is running down the checklist of a would-be authoritarian. And that's the context in which I think we should view things like the attack on the jury's verdict in the trial. And by the way, I don't think we know the answer yet. I don't think we know the outcome yet.
And I remember the words of the second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, when he was asked, "What's the election going to be about?" And he said, "It's going to be two things. It's going to be democracy and Dobbs." That's the Supreme Court ruling throwing out Roe versus Wade. There's a strong chance that he's correct about that.
Ian Bremmer:
Well, that's what he wants it to be about certainly. There's no question.
Susan Glasser:
Yeah, we'll see. We'll see.
Ian Bremmer:
Susan Glasser, Preet Bharara, thanks so much for joining to me. Thanks for having us.
Susan Glasser:
Thanks. That was great.
Ian Bremmer:
That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast. Do you like what you heard? Of course you do. Why not make it official? Why don't you rate and review GZERO World five stars, only five stars. Otherwise, don't do it. On Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Tell your friends.
- Biden vs Trump foreign policy: Political scientist Stephen Walt weighs in ›
- Preet Bharara on the legal troubles of former President Trump ›
- Trump has been found guilty. Will voters care? ›
- What the Trump trial circus is missing ›
- Donald Trump is a convicted felon ›
- Ian Bremmer on Trump's guilty verdict ›
- Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election? ›
Trump trial: How would a conviction hurt his reelection bid?
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How would a conviction in his hush money trial impact Trump in the 2024 election?
At least a little bit at the margins. And certainly that's the reason why Biden and the White House campaign are now working to pay attention to it, to get people down there in front of the courthouse where the media is located and talk about Trump as a criminal. Of course, could backfire on them, especially if it's a hung jury. But if he's convicted, while Republicans aren't going anywhere, there are a lot of independents that have consistently said that they are less willing to vote for Trump. Of course, this conviction comes in the lowest stake of the cases that are being presently pursued against the former president. This isn't the case on the insurrection and this isn't the case even on the classified documents being obscured, mishandled. And so as a consequence, I suspect at the end of the day, if you get a conviction, it's not going to matter much. But in a very, very close election, which is all about swing states and turnouts, it could hurt with getting independents to turn out for Trump.
Is Iran's emergency presidential election really about who will eventually succeed as supreme leader?
A little bit. This is my week of “a little bit” answers, in the sense that it's going to reveal who the Iranian supreme leader wants, what kind of a character he wants as president, an important position in terms of consensus policy execution going forward, how much of a hardliner, how close to the IRGC, how close to the Basij? In other words, you know, just how much are you going to see someone who has the ability to play to the audience, the masses a little bit, is a bit of a technocrat, or is someone that is truly going to be a theocratic dictator on every issue with very little wavering, to the extent that it's the latter of the next Supreme leader is likely to follow those steps. So that is certainly worth watching.
How will Mexico's presidential election reshape its relations with the United States?
Almost not at all. Claudia Sheinbaum, overwhelmingly likely to win. Not likely to get a supermajority, which means that López Obrador is going to have a hard time seriously changing the Constitution, undermining checks and balances in the country before he leaves. But he's still going to have an awful lot of influence, slightly more technocratic government, more focused on renewables and transition energy, but overwhelmingly focused on making sure that the relationship with the US is better. The one thing that I would say is important about Sheinbaum is, López Obrador traveled almost nowhere, didn't go to the G20 meetings, didn't go to UNGA, United Nations high level week, didn't go to the COP summits, just didn't travel, traveled around Mexico. Sheinbaum will go everywhere and will travel to the United States a lot, will travel to Canada, too. And I think that ultimately matters. So Mexico is going to have a higher priority at the presidential level on foreign policy, and especially in a relationship that can be tricky if Trump wins, for example, come next January. That's going to be at the margins, useful for the Mexicans.
- Optimism about Mexico's political and economic future ›
- Why Mexico is a key issue in the 2024 US election ›
- This man will be Iran’s next president. Who is he? ›
- Graphic Truth: How will Trump's hush money trial end? ›
- What the Trump trial circus is missing ›
- Trump has been found guilty. Will voters care? - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer on Trump's guilty verdict - GZERO Media ›
Trump's NYC hush-money trial: What to watch for
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
This is what we are watching in US Politics this week: Trump's trials.
Former President Trump faces or faced six civil or criminal actions against him in 2024, an election year. Two of which, civil finds that he was already found liable for. He's had to pay significant sums of money. Two of which, a case in Georgia and one in Florida, are very unlikely to start in this year, and one of which could start later this summer, this federal trial against Trump for election interference in Washington, DC. The final trial is set to begin next week. A trial in Manhattan for business records frauds related to hush money payments he made to a woman he was having an affair with before the 2016 election.
The key witness in this trial is Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, who Trump's going to try to discredit the testimony of by saying, “He's a liar, he's out for publicity. But the evidence against Trump is pretty damning here. There's almost no, it sure looks like he committed this crime. However, the allegations will have to be proven in court. Trump could win this case and the jury could decide to throw out the corroborating evidence. There's a lot of ways this could still go in Trump's favor. And if it does, that will be a significant win for Trump, because a significant portion of the electorate is telling pollsters today that if Trump is found guilty of a crime before the election, they would be less likely to vote for him.
Trump support drops by about ten percentage points in a New York Times poll from earlier in the year, based on whether or not he's found guilty. And these are really high stakes, drama for Trump. One of the key political inoculates Trump has is that the trial could be over quickly. He also is going to make the case that this is a politically motivated witch hunt and that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, is out to get him and stop him and undermine him because he's a Democrat. That message is certainly resonating with Republicans. The key question for Trump's election campaign is, “Does that message resonate with independents, or do they continue to see the criminal charges against Trump as being disqualifying?”
The trial starts next week. We'll find out what happens.
- The Supreme Court throws Trump a bone ›
- Trump's Jan. 6 trial could now hurt his re-election bid ›
- Jane Harman: Trump trial a distraction away from urgent global crises ›
- Two major Trump trial decisions this week ›
- What happens if Trump can’t find $454 million? ›
- Trump has been found guilty. Will voters care? - GZERO Media ›