How much does today's SCOTUS ruling help Trump's chances?

[SnowLabrador]

I'm actually going to say that it doesn't affect things at all for the 2024 election. Simply put, people either don't care about Trump's trials or are already voting for Biden. That being said, it is a major blow to the rule of law and sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

[Tekken_Guy]

Not having a conviction helps him with swing voters, but having a conviction could have supercharged his own base turnout.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Doesn’t matter much, as Biden’s chances were already low.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This is probably what was always going to happen. So I don't think it's anything but a lateral movement. The Biden campaign and Democrats never should have thought relying on a Trump conviction was all it would take to beat him, and I don't think they will going forward. He can still be beaten without a conviction by election day.

[Tekken_Guy]

Trump is still beatable without a J6 conviction.

And Trump can still win the election with one.

It barely moves the needle.

[Birdish]

Hot take apparently: Trump being on trial is not a good thing for him. SCOTUS potentially ruling against him is also not a good thing for him.

[SnowLabrador]

Hot take apparently: Trump being on trial is not a good thing for him. SCOTUS potentially ruling against him is also not a good thing for him.

But now the trial might not start until after the election.

[Lief 🗽]

Trump is still beatable without a J6 conviction.

And Trump can still win the election with one.

It barely moves the needle.

Honestly as a Democrat I’m terrified of an “October surprise” where Trump is acquitted or gets a hung jury right before the election. Moron swing voters and the media would see it as a total exoneration for him and he’d get a huge boost. Of course a conviction would be terrible for him too, but there’s no way to know which way a random jury goes ahead of time. It’s very risky for the trial to happen before the election.

[Pericles]

Not even this SCOTUS is stupid enough to accept Trump's legal arguments. They could want to delay the trial, but Chutkan wants to press ahead regardless of the political situation. So the trial is still most likely to be ahead of the election, though the risk of it falling afterwards has increased and that's a win for Trump. Regardless, there's a pretty decent chance of 1/4 trials happening before the election and resulting in a conviction, let alone multiple trials.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Trump is still beatable without a J6 conviction.

And Trump can still win the election with one.

It barely moves the needle.

Honestly as a Democrat I’m terrified of an “October surprise” where Trump is acquitted or gets a hung jury right before the election. Moron swing voters and the media would see it as a total exoneration for him and he’d get a huge boost. Of course a conviction would be terrible for him too, but there’s no way to know which way a random jury goes ahead of time. It’s very risky for the trial to happen before the election.

That's actually a really good point. Maybe Trump being in the middle of a trial at all will still be bad for him.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think it helps him a massive amount.  Easily the best day of the entire campaign for Trump.
I still think Trump can be beaten, but I think it’s unlikely he will be beaten by Biden.

[RI]

I don't believe a conviction would actually change anything, so I'll say no effect.

[PeteB]

On the whole, while it buys Trump some time, in the big picture, it is a big minus for him.  First of all, SCOTUS is almost certain to quash his lawyers' arguments that he should be not held accountable for any actions while POTUS.  It will certainly delay the trial, but that one or two months is not going to move the needle too much.  It would help him if SCOTUS delayed the ruling until June but, if they did that, all hell would break loose.  Last but not least, I believe that SCOTUS needs to hear this case before it hears the Colorado Supreme Court appeal and this should enable that to happen.  As more and more states disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS needs to act and make a ruling, as that decision is obviously not a states' prerogative, but a federal one. 

[Dan the Roman]

On the whole, while it buys Trump some time, in the big picture, it is a big minus for him.  First of all, SCOTUS is almost certain to quash his lawyers' arguments that he should be not held accountable for any actions while POTUS.  It will certainly delay the trial, but that one or two months is not going to move the needle too much.  It would help him if SCOTUS delayed the ruling until June but, if they did that, all hell would break loose.  Last but not least, I believe that SCOTUS needs to hear this case before it hears the Colorado Supreme Court appeal and this should enable that to happen.  As more and more states disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS needs to act and make a ruling, as that decision is obviously not a states' prerogative, but a federal one. 

The Court has already heard the Colorado appeal

[PeteB]

On the whole, while it buys Trump some time, in the big picture, it is a big minus for him.  First of all, SCOTUS is almost certain to quash his lawyers' arguments that he should be not held accountable for any actions while POTUS.  It will certainly delay the trial, but that one or two months is not going to move the needle too much.  It would help him if SCOTUS delayed the ruling until June but, if they did that, all hell would break loose.  Last but not least, I believe that SCOTUS needs to hear this case before it hears the Colorado Supreme Court appeal and this should enable that to happen.  As more and more states disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS needs to act and make a ruling, as that decision is obviously not a states' prerogative, but a federal one. 

The Court has already heard the Colorado appeal

SCOTUS has heard oral arguments but has not made a ruling in the case. In order to make that decision, they have to first decide if POTUS has absolute immunity. 

[Umengus]

On the whole, while it buys Trump some time, in the big picture, it is a big minus for him.  First of all, SCOTUS is almost certain to quash his lawyers' arguments that he should be not held accountable for any actions while POTUS.  It will certainly delay the trial, but that one or two months is not going to move the needle too much.  It would help him if SCOTUS delayed the ruling until June but, if they did that, all hell would break loose.  Last but not least, I believe that SCOTUS needs to hear this case before it hears the Colorado Supreme Court appeal and this should enable that to happen.  As more and more states disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS needs to act and make a ruling, as that decision is obviously not a states' prerogative, but a federal one. 

The Court has already heard the Colorado appeal

SCOTUS has heard oral arguments but has not made a ruling in the case. In order to make that decision, they have to first decide if POTUS has absolute immunity. 

Considering the oral arguments, colorado SC will lose. Another win for Trump.

[Inmate Trump]

No conviction before the election helps him a lot.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

If he isn't convicted before the election, the only chance he gets convicted of anything will be in Georgia. Trump will shutdown all the federal cases against him.

[wbrocks67]

If he isn't convicted before the election, the only chance he gets convicted of anything will be in Georgia. Trump will shutdown all the federal cases against him.

Why are people convinced he won't be convicted in NY? The case isn't as "bad" as the other 3, but it still seems clear cut with the evidence, whether people think it's serious enough or not.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

If the Supreme Court's ruling agrees with Trump's claims for Presidential immunity, that could be terrible for his election chances - it's hard to win after your opponent has you executed, lawfully.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If he isn't convicted before the election, the only chance he gets convicted of anything will be in Georgia. Trump will shutdown all the federal cases against him.

Why are people convinced he won't be convicted in NY? The case isn't as "bad" as the other 3, but it still seems clear cut with the evidence, whether people think it's serious enough or not.

It’s not at all clear cut that payments to a porn star should constitute contributions to your political campaign under the campaign finance laws. There is definitely ambiguity here, and in a criminal trial, ambiguity should almost always be resolved in favor of the defendant. 

Based on everything I have heard in NY, I would not convict Trump in that trial, and I am as desperate as anyone to see him convicted of something.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

If he isn't convicted before the election, the only chance he gets convicted of anything will be in Georgia. Trump will shutdown all the federal cases against him.

Why are people convinced he won't be convicted in NY? The case isn't as "bad" as the other 3, but it still seems clear cut with the evidence, whether people think it's serious enough or not.

It’s not at all clear cut that payments to a porn star should constitute contributions to your political campaign under the campaign finance laws. There is definitely ambiguity here, and in a criminal trial, ambiguity should almost always be resolved in favor of the defendant. 

Based on everything I have heard in NY, I would not convict Trump in that trial, and I am as desperate as anyone to see him convicted of something.

He falsified business records to decieve the public in order to get elected. It definitely ought to be criminal. Unfortunately, to my non-lawyer eyes, it seems like it ought to have been a federal criminal case... which Barr and Trump successfully sabotaged. That makes the NY case  a very strange one.

[mjba257]

If he isn't convicted before the election, the only chance he gets convicted of anything will be in Georgia. Trump will shutdown all the federal cases against him.

Why are people convinced he won't be convicted in NY? The case isn't as "bad" as the other 3, but it still seems clear cut with the evidence, whether people think it's serious enough or not.

It’s not at all clear cut that payments to a porn star should constitute contributions to your political campaign under the campaign finance laws. There is definitely ambiguity here, and in a criminal trial, ambiguity should almost always be resolved in favor of the defendant. 

Based on everything I have heard in NY, I would not convict Trump in that trial, and I am as desperate as anyone to see him convicted of something.

He falsified business records to decieve the public in order to get elected. It definitely ought to be criminal. Unfortunately, to my non-lawyer eyes, it seems like it ought to have been a federal criminal case... which Barr and Trump successfully sabotaged. That makes the NY case  a very strange one.

It's a crap case being brought by a politically motivated, Soros-funded DA who honestly never should've gotten through law school (I do have theory as to why). Even if you think it's a legit case (it's not), it was brought way outside the statute of limitations and NY doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over this case (it's a federal matter). And no proof the payments were even related to the election. Very possible Trump did it because he didn't want Melania finding out. Yeah, immoral behavior but certainly not criminal.

[oldtimer]

Not even this SCOTUS is stupid enough to accept Trump's legal arguments. They could want to delay the trial, but Chutkan wants to press ahead regardless of the political situation. So the trial is still most likely to be ahead of the election, though the risk of it falling afterwards has increased and that's a win for Trump. Regardless, there's a pretty decent chance of 1/4 trials happening before the election and resulting in a conviction, let alone multiple trials.

The obvious so far:

The Supreme Court wants to delay any showdown that can affect the election until after the election, so that the Courts cant be accused of influencing the election.

[DaleCooper]

I don't think people realize how shockingly small of a story Trump's legal problems are. Anyone who knows about them in the first place already knows who they're voting for. No effect.