Philippa Kaur

A quick check of the Met office forecasts for Ukraine suggests that over the next week or so the weather is going to get steadily warmer. The rising mercury has fuelled speculation that Ukraine’s much discussed spring offensive is just around the corner, the only questions being when and where Ukraine’s military planners intend to make their big push. Kyiv is being understandably tight-lipped about this, surprise and deception – as Sun Tsu noted in the Art of War millenia ago – being key to military success.

Some observers have noted that Ukraine has achieved a bridgehead on the eastern side of the Dnipro River, which could foreshadow a major push southwards towards Crimea. The big question exercising most military experts is whether Ukraine has received sufficient new military equipment from its western allies to achieve the sort of spectacular successes it managed in September and October last year.

But there are signs of war fatigue setting in among some of Kyiv’s friends, while – as we noted in the last Ukraine recap – an increasing number of countries are opting to join China in urging Volodymyr Zelensky to the negotiating table. Just this week the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, held a telephone conversation with the Ukrainian president, the first time the pair has spoken since the war began. Zelensky said afterwards that he had told Xi that: “There can be no peace at the expense of territorial compromises.”

Since Vladimir Putin sent his war machine into Ukraine on February 24 2022, The Conversation has called upon some of the leading experts in international security, geopolitics and military tactics to help our readers understand the big issues. You can also subscribe to our fortnightly recap of expert analysis of the conflict in Ukraine.

But with much of Europe and the west suffering rising inflation and the prospect of continuing unstable energy prices, this may become an increasingly unpopular stance. Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, tracks Beijing’s growing influence in the diplomatic manoeuvring around Ukraine while noting widening divisions in the west.

Read more:
Western anger over China’s ambiguity on Ukraine cannot hide growing divisions in EU over support for Kyiv

There is, as Chris Morris – an expert in military strategy at the University of Portsmouth notes here – an element of Catch-22 about the situation. Kyiv’s allies want the spring offensive to demonstrate that Ukraine can achieve significant gains on the battlefield if they are to continue to pour billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment into the cause. Kyiv, meanwhile, needs billions of dollars’ of military equipment to achieve that success.

The state of the conflict on April 26 according to the Institute for the Study of War.
Institute for the Study of War

The problem, as Morris notes, is that the recent massive leak of US intelligence files included Pentagon assessments that Ukraine is unlikely to make the same massive gains as it achieved last autumn. A great deal is likely to hang on whether that assessment is accurate or whether, like last year, Ukraine’s tactical nous will surprise everyone once again, most crucially, of course, the Russians.

Read more:
Ukraine war: as Kyiv prepares counteroffensive it needs to convince allies it is up for the fight

Many observers have linked the fighting – particularly over the winter around the battered city of Bakhmut in Ukraine’s east – to the first world war: the trenches, the high casualty numbers, the slow progress across territory. Christiaan Harinck, an expert in the history of war at Utrecht University, says that while much of this is undeniable, it would be foolish to jump to conclusions about what would appear to be the failure of Russia’s winter offensive.

Moscow’s political objectives, Harink warns, might be as much about involving the west in a lengthy and debilitating conflict. As he writes here: “It might be the case that in its current assessment of the situation, a stalemate in eastern Ukraine serves the Kremlin’s purpose.”

Read more:
Ukraine war: why WWI comparisons can lead to underestimates of Russia’s strengths

The Russian front

If many western commentators are comparing the trench warfare in eastern Ukraine to the first world war, Putin and his propaganda machine have been insistent in drawing parallels with the “great patriotic war” in which Russia (with, admittedly, a modicum of help from the US, Britain and other countries) faced down the Nazi threat and achieved victory in Europe.

Russians celebrate Victory Day on May 9 (the UK celebrates the same thing on May 8, due to the time difference) and, particularly since Putin came to power, it’s become a huge thing. One of the centrepieces is the march of the Immortals Regiment in which thousands parade with pictures of loved ones who gave their lives in defence of the homeland.

But not this year. It was recently announced that for security reasons the celebrations would be scaled back (cancelled in cities deemed too close to the Ukraine border) and the march of the Immortals will not take place.

Dina Fainberg, an expert in modern history at City, University of London, tells the story of how Victory day become Russia’s biggest national celebration. As she notes, the decision has been greeted with derision by many in the west. One former US military commander tweeting that: “Nothing says you’re a grand strategist quite like not having enough soldiers and equipment to hold an annual parade.”

Fainburg thinks there could be another reason behind the decision. Imagine if thousands of people turned up to march carrying pictures of loved ones killed in Putin’s “special military operation”.

Read more:
Ukraine war: Russia scales back May 9 Victory Day celebrations amid fear of popular protests

Victory Day become a tradition during Soviet times. Another less palatable feature of that era were the show trials by which Stalin rid himself of possible rivals and other thorns in his side. Preparing to be sentenced to 25 years for “treason”, journalist and activist Vladimir Kara-Murza recently drew a comparison between his treatment and 1930s-style Soviet “justice”.

Russian dIssident Vladimir Kara-Murza has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for ‘treason’ among other charges.
The Moscow City Court via AP

But, as Stephen Hall – an expert in authoritarian regimes at the University of Bath – notes here, Putin has shown he has myriad ways of silencing troublesome voices in modern Russia.

Read more:
‘Stalin-style’ show trials and unexplained deaths of opposition figures show the depth of repression in Putin’s Russia

Further afield (and on sea)

Anyone following the war in Ukraine will have heard of the Wagner Group, a mercenary army allegedly run by one of Putin’s closest allies, Yevgeny Prigozhin. Allegedly, because Prigozhin himself denies any knowledge of the Wagner Group. Whatever the truth of this, there is increasing evidence that Russian mercenaries are involved in several parts of Africa, including Sudan – where savage fighting is rapidly spreading across the whole country and threatens to descend into civil war (although the Wagner Group denies this).

Kristian Gustafson and a team of intelligence experts at Brunel, University of London, have taken a close look at reports of Russian involvement in conflicts across Africa.

Read more:
Sudan: questions about Wagner Group involvement as another African country falls prey to Russian mercenaries

Finally, it remains unclear who was behind the sabotage to the Nord Stream pipeline last year that held up supplies of gas into Europe, fuelling concerns about the vulnerability of vital undersea and maritime infrastructure. Now a documentary report from a consortium of Scandinavian broadcasters has investigated the movements of a Russian research vessel called Admiral Vladimirsky allegedly collecting data on windfarms, gas pipelines, power and internet cables in the North Sea.

Christian Bueger, a professor of international relations at the University of Copenhagen, once accompanied a Royal Navy reconnaissance vessel to the North Sea where part of its mission was to look out for Russian spy ships. He gives us his assessment of just how vulnerable this infrastructure is to hostile interference.

Read more:
Russian ‘spy ship’ in North Sea raises concerns about the vulnerability of key maritime infrastructure

Ukraine Recap is available as a fortnightly email newsletter. Click here to get our recaps directly in your inbox. More

After months of speculation, the US president, Joe Biden, has confirmed his intention to seek reelection in 2024. In his video announcement, Biden promised to stand up against “MAGA extremists” and called on Americans to give him the chance to “finish the job”, saying:

When I ran for president four years ago, I said we are in a battle for the soul of America. And we still are. This is not a time to be complacent. That’s why I’m running for reelection.

The Republican party countered immediately, showing an AI-generated video on the GOP YouTube channel that depicted a dystopian future if Biden was reelected, using fake reports of increasing crime rates, illegal immigration and financial chaos.

There seems to be little enthusiasm for a second Biden term among Americans. His Gallup job approval rating at the end of his third year in office was just 40% – below Ronald Reagan’s (41%) in 1983 and only a point above Donald Trump’s in 2019 (39%).

According to a recent CBS News poll, almost half (45%) of Democrats think that Biden shouldn’t run. A huge 86% of those who thought he shouldn’t run stated that their main cause of concern was Biden’s age, while 77% felt it was time for someone new.

However, a slew of opinion polls assembled by the influential US politics blog FiveThirtyEight have found that Biden would beat any of the other Democrat politicians touted as possible nominees.

The age-old question

Born on November 20 1942, Biden would be 82 at the start of a second term and 86 by its end – the oldest person to be elected president and serve in the office. One focus group of swing voters deemed Biden too old, with a panellist saying: “Give that man a break!”

But columnist Abhi Rahman has argued that Biden’s age should be seen as a strength, not a weakness, and that he has the potential to make significant ground for Democrats in the next election, much like Reagan did in 1984 – another president whose age was raised as a concern by his opponents.

Just like Biden, even Reagan’s own party was worried about his age before his first election in 1980, at the (relatively) youthful age of 70. Republican leaders’ worries about whether Reagan would be able to “maintain his energy level” throughout his presidency were underlined by a claim by former president Jimmy Carter that he could not have dealt with the challenges of the office at the age 80.

Republicans are less likely to point to Biden’s age as an issue. Trump, currently the likeliest candidate to be the Republican nominee, has said that Biden’s age is not an issue – which is unsurprising given that Trump will be almost 79 at the next election.

Instead, Republicans have focused on the issues that continue to challenge the Biden administration: inflation and immigration concerns at the southern border.

While Democrats are not entirely happy with Biden running again because of his age, it is unlikely anyone will pose a significant threat to his nomination. Carter was the last incumbent to be challenged for the nomination when Senator Edward Kennedy threw his hat into the ring in 1980. Kennedy was unsuccessful then and his nephew, Robert F Kennedy Jr, poses no serious challenge to Biden with his current campaign for the nomination.

Running mate

Biden’s confirmation of his intention to run included his selection of the vice-president, Kamala Harris, as his running mate. Questions had been raised about whether Biden might have chosen someone else for the ticket. Instead, he has identified Harris as his nominated successor, an issue that had concerned many Democrats.

Heartbeat from the presidency: Kamal Harris has been confirmed as Joe Biden’s running mate in 2024.
EPA-EFE/Jim Lo Scalzo

In her statement, Harris called the 2024 election “a pivotal moment in our history” and told Americans that she and the president “look forward to finishing the job, winning this battle for the soul of the nation, and serving the American people for four more years in the White House”.

Harris’s selection is important. As columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times, Biden’s age – and possible failing health while in office – means Americans are voting as much for the vice-president as they are Biden, “more than in any other election in American history”.

But why break a winning formula? Recent polls indicate that a Biden-Harris ticket currently offers the best possible chance for a Democrat victory against either Trump or Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis.

Unlike Trump, Biden has portrayed himself as a president for all Americans, not just those who voted for him. His public courting of Republican collaboration on the passing of his landmark infrastructure bills made small steps to bridging the partisan gap in American politics. This may provide a bridge for the Democratic party of tomorrow to appeal to some Republicans.

Such bipartisan appeal gains even more importance when considering that the 2024 presidential election may be the end of a cycle – the passing of the old guard.

The 2028 election will require a new generation of political leaders to step into the vacuum. If he wins in 2024, Biden will constitutionally be unable to stand, having had two terms in office. If Trump loses for a second time, he will not be trusted with the nomination again. And if Biden loses, it is unlikely he will run at the age of 86.

Increasingly politically active millennial voters, who turned out in high numbers in the 2022 midterms, have the potential to change the political landscape of the 2028 election, and are becoming the target audience of the next set of presidential candidates. Who these will be is currently a mystery, but contenders will likely be jockeying for the box-seat between 2024 and the next election.

Until then, it appears almost certain that Democrats will put their faith in the Biden-Harris ticket for one more term. More

Are Americans really as politically polarized as they seem – and everybody says?

It’s definitely true that Democrats and Republicans increasingly hate and fear one another. But this animosity seems to have more to do with tribal loyalty than liberal-versus-conservative disagreements about policy. Our research into what Americans actually want in terms of policy shows that many have strong political views that can’t really be characterized in terms of “right” or “left.”

The media often talks about the American political landscape as if it were a line. Liberal Democrats are on the left, conservative Republicans on the right, and a small sliver of moderate independents are in the middle. But political scientists like us have long argued that a line is a bad metaphor for how Americans think about politics.

Sometimes scholars and pundits will argue that views on economic issues like taxes and income redistribution, and views on so-called social or cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage, actually represent two distinct dimensions in American political attitudes. Americans, they say, can have liberal views on one dimension but conservative views on the other. So you could have a pro-choice voter who wants lower taxes, or a pro-life voter who wants the government to do more to help the poor.

But even this more sophisticated, two-dimensional picture doesn’t reveal what Americans actually want the government to do – or not do – when it comes to policy.

First, it ignores some of the most contentious topics in American politics today, like affirmative action, the Black Lives Matter movement and attempts to stamp out “wokeness” on college campuses.

Since 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency while simultaneously stoking racial anxieties and bucking Republican orthodoxy on taxes and same-sex marriage, it has become clear that what Americans think about politics can’t really be understood without knowing what they think about racism, and what – if anything – they want done about it.

‘Racial Justice Communitarians’ have liberal views on economic issues and moderate or conservative views on moral issues; some Black evangelicals supported Barack Obama but were troubled by his support for same-sex marriage.
Charles Ommanney/Getty Images

Recently, some political scientists have argued that views on racial issues represent a third “dimension” in American politics. But there are other problems with treating political attitudes as a set of “dimensions” in the first place. For example, even a “3D” picture doesn’t allow for the possibility that Americans with conservative economic views tend to also hold conservative racial views, while Americans with liberal economic views are deeply divided on issues related to race.

A new picture of American politics

In our new article in Sociological Inquiry, we analyzed public opinion data from 2004 to 2020 to develop a more nuanced picture of American political attitudes. Our aim was to do a better job of figuring out what Americans actually think about politics, including policies related to race and racism.

Using a new analytic method that doesn’t force us to think in terms of dimensions at all, we found that, over the past two decades, Americans can be broadly divided into five different groups.

In most years, slightly less than half of all Americans had consistently liberal or conservative views on policies related to the economy, morality and race, and thus fall into one of two groups.

“Consistent Conservatives” tend to believe that the free market should be given free rein in the economy, are generally anti-abortion, tend to say that they support “traditional family ties” and oppose most government efforts to address racial disparities. These Americans almost exclusively identify themselves as Republicans.

“Consistent Liberals” strongly support government intervention in the economy, tend to be in favor of abortion rights and pro-same-sex marriage and feel that the government has a responsibility to help address discrimination against Black Americans. They mostly identify as Democrats.

But the majority of Americans, who don’t fall into one of these two groups, are not necessarily “moderates,” as they are often characterized. Many have very strong views on certain issues, but can’t be pigeonholed as being on the left or right in general.

Instead, we find that these Americans can be classified as one of three groups, whose size and relationship to the two major parties change from one election cycle to the next:

“Racial Justice Communitarians” have liberal views on economic issues like taxes and redistribution and moderate or conservative views on moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. They also strongly believe that the government has a responsibility to address racial discrimination. This group likely includes many of the Black evangelicals who strongly supported Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, but were also deeply uncomfortable with his expression of support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

“Nativist Communitarians” also have liberal views on economics and conservative views on moral issues, but they are extremely conservative with respect to race and immigration, in some cases even more so than Consistent Conservatives. Picture, for instance, those voters in 2016 who were attracted to both Bernie Sanders’ economic populism and Donald Trump’s attacks on immigrants.

“Libertarians,” who we find became much more prominent after the tea party protests of 2010, are conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues and have mixed but generally conservative views in regard to racial issues. Think here of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who think that the government has no business telling them how to run their company – or telling gay couples that they can’t get married.

Three groups of Americans have a difficult time fitting in with either of America’s two major parties.
Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images

Five groups – but only two parties

These three groups of Americans have a difficult time fitting in with either of the two major parties in the U.S.

In every year we looked, the Racial Justice Communitarians – who include the largest percentage of nonwhite Americans – were most likely to identify as Democrats. But in some years up to 40% still thought of themselves as Republicans or independents.

Nativist Communitarians and Libertarians are even harder to pin down. During the Obama years they were actually slightly more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. But since Trump’s rise in 2016, both groups are now slightly more likely to identify as Republicans, although large percentages of each group describe themselves as independents or Democrats.

Seeing Americans as divided into these five groups – as opposed to polarized between the left and right – shows that both political parties are competing for coalitions of voters with different combinations of views.

Many Racial Justice Communitarians disagree with the Democratic Party when it comes to cultural and social issues. But the party probably can’t win national elections without their votes. And, unless they are willing to make a strong push for promoting “racial justice,” the Republican Party’s national electoral prospects probably depend on attracting significant support from either the economically liberal Nativist Communitarians or the socially liberal Libertarians.

But perhaps most importantly, these five groups show how diverse Americans’ political attitudes really are. Just because American democracy is a two-party system doesn’t mean that there are only two kinds of American voters. More

Much has been made of the unprecedented nature of the April 4, 2023 arraignment on criminal charges of former President Donald Trump following an indictment brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. But a closer look at American history shows that the indictment of a former president was not unforeseen.

What the Constitution says about prosecuting a president

The Constitution’s authors contemplated the arrest of a current or former president. At several points since the nation’s founding, our leaders have been called before the bar of justice.

Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution says that when a federal government official is impeached and removed from office, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

In his defense of this constitutional provision, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton noted that, unlike the British king, for whom “there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected,” a president once removed from office would “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Trump has been impeached twice, but not removed from office.

As a scholar with expertise in legal history and criminal law, I believe the punishment our Founding Fathers envisioned for high officeholders removed from office would also apply to those who left office in other ways.

Tench Coxe, a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress from 1788–89, echoed Hamilton. He explained that while the Constitution’s speech and debate clause permanently immunized members of Congress from liability for anything they might do or say as part of their official duties, the president “is not so much protected as that of a member of the House of Representatives; for he may be proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary course of law.”

In Coxe’s view, even a sitting president could be arrested, tried and punished for violating the law. And, though Coxe didn’t say it explicitly, I’d argue that it follows that if a president can be charged with a crime while in office, once out of office, he could be held responsible like anyone else.

The indictment of Aaron Burr

Hamilton’s and Coxe’s positions were put to an early test soon after the Constitution was ratified. The test came when jurors in New Jersey indicted Vice President Aaron Burr for killing Hamilton in a duel in that state.

An artist’s depiction of the Burr–Hamilton duel on July 11, 1804. Hamilton was mortally wounded, and Burr was indicted for his death.
Ivan-96/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

The indictment charged that “Aaron Burr late of the Township of Bergen in the County of Bergen esquire not having the fear of God before his eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil … feloniously willfully and of his malice aforethought did make an assault upon Alexander Hamilton … [who] of the said Mortal wounds died.”

While Burr’s powerful friends subsequently interceded and persuaded state officials to drop the charges, their success had nothing to do with any immunity that Burr enjoyed as an executive officer of the United States.

Indeed, Burr’s legal troubles were not over. In February 1807, after his term as vice president ended, he was arrested and charged with treason for plotting to create a new and independent nation separate from the U.S. This time, he stood trial and was acquitted.

The Strange case of Ulysses S. Grant

Fast forward to 1872, when the incumbent president, Ulysses S. Grant, was arrested in Washington, D.C., for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage.

The arresting officer told Grant, “I am very sorry, Mr. President, to have to do it, for you are the chief of the nation, and I am nothing but a policeman, but duty is duty, sir, and I will have to place you under arrest.”

As The New York Post recently recounted the story, Grant “was ordered to put up 20 bucks as collateral.” But he never stood trial.

20th and 21st century precedents

A little over a century later, Republican Vice President Spiro Agnew had a more serious brush with the law when he was accused by the Department of Justice of a pattern of political corruption starting when he was a county executive in Maryland and continuing through his tenure as vice president.

On Oct. 10, 1973, Agnew agreed to a plea bargain. He resigned his office and pleaded no contest to a charge of federal income tax evasion in exchange for the federal government dropping charges of political corruption. He was fined US$10,000 and sentenced to three years’ probation.

Spiro Agnew leaves a Baltimore federal courthouse on Oct. 10, 1973, after pleading no contest to tax evasion charges and resigning as vice president.
Bettmann via Getty Images

Richard Nixon, the president with whom Agnew served, narrowly escaped being indicted for his role in the Watergate burglary and its cover-up. In 2018, the National Archives released documents, labeled the Watergate Road Map, that showed just how close Nixon had come to being charged.

The documents reveal that “a grand jury planned to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal investigation.” But an indictment was never handed down because, by that time, Hamilton’s and Coxe’s views had been displaced by a belief that a sitting president should not be indicted.

Nixon was later saved from criminal charges after he left office when his successor, President Gerald Ford, granted him a full and complete pardon.

Another occasion on which a president came close to being charged with a crime
occurred in January 2001, when, as an article in The Atlantic notes, independent prosecutor Robert Ray considered indicting former President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Ultimately, Ray decided that if Clinton publicly admitted to “having been misleading and evasive under oath … he didn’t need to see him indicted.”

And in February 2021, after President Trump had left office, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged that the former president, who had escaped being removed from office twice after being impeached, would still be legally “liable for everything he did while he was in office … We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

What history teaches about Trump’s indictment

This brings us to the present moment.

For any prosecutor, including Alvin Bragg, the indictment and arrest of a former president is a genuinely momentous act. As Henry Ruth, one of the prosecutors who was involved in the Nixon case, explained in 1974, “Signing one’s name to the indictment of an ex-president is an act that one wishes devolved upon another but one’s self. This is true even where such an act, in institutional and justice terms, appears absolutely necessary.”

For the rest of us, this nation’s history is a reminder that ours is not the first generation of Americans who have been called to deal with alleged wrongdoing by our leaders and former leaders. More

On April 4, Americans lived through a new experience: a former president of the United States officially charged with a criminal offence. Donald Trump has achieved many firsts across his media and subsequent political career – but it’s unlikely this was a first he was aiming for.

Not that you could tell from his demeanour. Although news reports from journalists in the courtroom noted he appeared “sombre”, on his own turf Trump pulled few punches. On his social media platform TruthSocial, shortly before he left Trump Tower to head to the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, Trump blasted the judge in charge of the hearing, Justice Juan Merchan, as “highly partisan” and whose family are “well-known Trump haters”. He repeated these accusations during his speech from his Mar-A-Lago home in Florida a few hours later.

Denying he did anything illegal, Trump also repeated now-familiar claims that his prosecution is politically motivated, asserting that this process is an “insult” to the US. He claimed: “The only crime I have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it.”

The charges

The official reading of the charges against Trump in court revealed few surprises. In effect, he has been charged with falsifying business records. The charges allege that having reimbursed his lawyer for payments to two women (unnamed, but widely believed to be former adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy Bunny Karen McDougal) to ensure their silence about allegations of extra-marital relations, Trump then claimed those payments as legal expenses in his accounts.

The payments themselves were not illegal, but recording them as something else in the business records is. Trump is charged with 34 counts, each relating to a particular instance of financial accounting for these payments.

Perhaps the most surprising element after days of speculation was that Trump was charged with felonies – the more serious level of crime – rather than the lower-level misdemeanours that had been expected. The argument here is that the falsification of business records occurred to cover up another crime.

The district attorney bringing the case, Alvin L. Bragg, appeared to keep options open regarding exactly what that other crime might be. Violations of state and federal election laws are one possible claim, but may be difficult to prove. A second possible avenue appears to be that these financial records were intended to mislead state tax authorities. Bragg may well seek to establish both at trial, giving a jury options for conviction.

New York district attorney Alvin Bragg has received death threats following his decision to pursue the investigation against the former president.
EPA-EFE/Justin Lane

The charges may seem relatively insignificant for anyone expecting something in keeping with Trump’s larger-than-life personality and the vehemence of his criticisms of those involved in the process. And he certainly faces other, more serious legal investigations around both his role in the January 6 2021 riots on Capitol Hill and potential election tampering regarding the closely fought Georgia election. Both could lead to future criminal charges.

But, as Bragg noted in his post-hearing statements, prosecuting business crime is a large part of what the New York district attorney’s office does – and white-collar crime is still criminal behaviour. Each felony count carries a maximum sentence of four years, meaning if convicted on all counts, Trump could face up to 136 years of prison time, although it is more likely that he would face a hefty fine.

The process

Little moves quickly in the US justice system. The next step is for the prosecution to file what is known as “discovery”, or the evidence they will use at trial. This will be followed by a similar filing by Trump’s defence team. According to New York law, these must be filed by May 9 and June 8 respectively.

The defence then has until August 8 to raise any claims or queries. This might include a motion to dismiss the case entirely, if they feel there is insufficient evidence on which to proceed. The prosecution has the option to respond and Judge Merchan will have until early December to rule.

Judge Juan Merchan, who will preside over the trial of the former president, has already been involved in the prosecution of the Trump Organisation over tax matters.
Jane Rosenberg/Reuters

While the Trump team’s motions might well garner attention, the most significant date is December when both sides – and the rest of the country – will find out whether the case will go to trial or not. The timing is significant as it comes just before the first voting in the primary elections for the 2024 presidential campaign.

If the case is discharged, it may prove to be a major boost to his chances of electoral success. Alternatively, the spectacle of a presidential candidate fighting to prove his innocence in a criminal case while simultaneously campaigning for the nation’s highest office is hardly likely to undermine the outsider’s perception of a broken American political system.

What of Trump’s presidential bid?

Trump’s indictment and official charging have brought him national media attention at a level he hasn’t really received since he left office in January 2021. But the presidential election is 18 months away and a lot can happen between now and then.

Recent events have invigorated Trump’s base, but we already knew that there are a core group of voters who continue to support Trump and believe he was unfairly denied the election in 2020. And, despite claims of a boost in the polls, poll-tracking website FiveThirtyEight indicates that Trump’s approval ratings are around 39% – not a low for him, but not an historic high either (Joe Biden’s approval ratings stand not much higher at 43%).

Trump’s ability to win in 2024 will depend on his ability to secure the votes not only of his base but of moderate Republicans and centrist swing voters, many of whom were convinced in 2016 that Trump represented the change the nation needed. Four years later, those voters reversed course and chose the moderate, non-confrontational Biden instead.

After the tumult of the pandemic and massive inflation, the nation’s appetite for a return of the political disruptor remains in doubt, irrespective of the status of his legal troubles. All we can be sure about is that Trump will not back down and will continue his campaign for the office he believes he deserves – which means we’ll all be hearing more from and about him in the coming months. More