A jury found Donald Trump guilty of 34 crimes last week, but it remains to be seen how high the price the former president will pay for his crimes. Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the case, scheduled a sentencing hearing for July 11.
It’s hard to say for sure what to expect, although as NBC News reported, the Republican is already putting out some unnecessarily provocative rhetoric on the subject.
During his latest appearance on Fox News, the presumptive Republican nominee admitted that he faced a stiff sentence after being found guilty, although he warned it could be “tough” for the public.
“I don’t know if the public would tolerate this. You know, I don’t know. I’m not sure the public would be in favor of that,” Trump said. “I think it will be difficult for the public to accept this. You know, at some point there’s a breaking point.”
Trump on possible house arrest or jail time: I’m not sure the public would be in favor of that. I think it will be difficult for the public to accept this. At some point there is a breaking point pic.twitter.com/kiULX6wax6
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 2, 2024
He didn’t elaborate on what exactly would happen at this “breaking point,” though the rhetoric wasn’t exactly subtle.
If the comments on the broadcast sounded familiar, it wasn’t your imagination. For example, in September 2022, after the FBI served a court-approved search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the former president wrote that he did not know “how much more our country will be prepared to withstand.” He used similar rhetoric two months later. A month later he added: “The people of this country will not last much longer.”
Around the same time, conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt asked about possible criminal charges. “I think if it were to happen, you would have problems in this country that we may have never seen before,” Trump said. “I don’t think the people of the United States would be in favor of that. … I think they would have big problems, big problems. I just don’t think they would tolerate this.”
Note that Trump did not immediately come out and explicitly say that his radicalized followers would commit acts of political violence. That certainly seemed to be the intended subtext, and there was no great mystery about his intentions, but the former president showed at least some rhetorical restraint.
Nevertheless, the Republican took further steps along the same path in February, promoting an online message from a supporter who threatened to “physically fight for Trump.” The same mission ended with a “locked and loaded” warning.
A month later, Trump publicly mocked calls for “peace” while suggesting his indictment would raise the prospect of “death threats.” [and] destruction” that “could be catastrophic for our country.”
That same week, an NBC News reporter asked the former president if he believed political violence would be “justified.” Trump responded, “Well, I’ll say this. No, I don’t like violence, and I am not for violence not at all. But a lot of people are angry, and you know, they rigged an election, they stole an election, they spied on my campaign. They did a lot of bad things.”
When someone says: ‘I’m not in favor of violence at all, but…’, there is usually a rather obvious problem.
Last summer, Trump continued this. Asked about the prospect of incarceration as a result of his many alleged crimes, the former president added: “I think it’s very dangerous to even talk about it because we have an extremely passionate group of voters, much more passionate than they had. in 2020 and much more passion than they had in 2016. I think it would be very dangerous.”
It was the next day that the Republican promoted a video in which, above an image of his face and his campaign logo, he quoted: “If you deal with us, if you do something bad to us, we’re going to do it. do things to you that have never been done before.
As part of an analysis of his inflammatory rhetoric, a Washington Post report added: “It is now undeniable that such language, even if you regard Trump’s intentions as somehow innocent, leads to a very dark situation can lead.”
Due to some measures, that dark spot is already visible. Reuters reported last week, for example, that in the wake of the Republican’s conviction, his followers “flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retaliation.” The report noted that some online contributors “called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Judge Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed uprising.”
NBC News had a related report reporting violent threats against those responsible for administering justice – including jurors. If Trump is concerned about such consequences, he is hiding his fears well.
Rachel spoke at length about the broader dynamics in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, and if you missed the coverage, I encourage you to check it out. Among the questions she raised: Will the United States protect the people who administer our justice system so it can function without fear or favor? – doesn’t have to be rhetorical.
This message updates our related previous reporting.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
