3 Breaking Questions About Trump’s Conviction: Answered

lev radin / shutterstock.com
lev radin / shutterstock.com

When news broke Thursday night, Google was everyone’s go-to about what it meant for the General Election as well as the future of the country.

We’ve got the top three questions, along with answers that you can trust right here.

Is Trump Eligible To Run For President?

According to the United States Constitution, presidential candidates must meet three qualifications:

  • Being at least 35 years old,
  • Having natural birth citizenship, and
  • Living within the country for fourteen years prior to their candidacy.

No specific provisions exist regarding criminal backgrounds. However, public opinion may play a role in determining Trump’s electability. According to recent surveys, approximately half of voters in crucial battleground states indicated they wouldn’t support Trump if he secured a conviction (Bloomberg and Morning Consult), and six percent of existing supporters expressed reservations (Quinnipiac University), potentially influencing close races.

How Does Trump Face Sentencing and Possible Imprisonment?

Since the trial concluded without immediate imprisonment, Trump remains free until his upcoming sentencing hearing on July 11th. Judge Juan Manuel Merchan will determine various aspects when imposing penalties, considering Trump’s age, past record, and the non-violent nature of the offense. Although jail sentences are theoretically plausible due to each count carrying a maximum penalty of four years, most analysts believe Trump won’t spend significant time in custody. Instead, fines, probation, community service, or house arrest appear more probable outcomes.

Why Could Trump’s Defense Team Seek Grounds of Appeal?

Two primary areas of concern include Stormy Daniels’ detailed testimonial account and the DA’s unusual approach to charging Trump based on allegedly related crimes. Regarding the latter point, Professor Anna Cominskey contends that the excessive details presented by Daniels made her testimony persuasive yet debatable. She added that the information given could sometimes seem unnecessary and potentially prejudicial. Moreover, the DA used an untested argument claiming falsified business records constituted felony election interference. Some legal professionals argue that the DA exceeded their authority since neither the statute nor precedents explicitly grant them such discretion.