US GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN ENDS AFTER DEMOCRATS TAKE A STAND, THEN CONCEDE THEIR DEMANDS

by Nicholas Patti

November 14, 2025, Wake Forest, NC—As the longest US government shutdown dragged on for weeks upon weeks, costs mounted. Millions of airline passengers faced delays and cancellations ahead of the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday and travel rush. Food stamps for 42 million hungry Americans were at risk of not being paid. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers were seeing paycheck after paycheck of zero pay. In the national, off-year, local elections on November 4^th, 2025, Democrats punished Republicans at the polls with an electoral sweep. Apparently, voters blamed Republicans more than Democrats for the shutdown.

Then, a compromise emerged, and the shutdown came to an end. Eight Senate Democrats, including one independent, conceded the Democratic demand of funding for the expiring Obamacare premium subsidies. They were offered a vote on the issue on the Senate floor, sometime in December. Republicans achieved exactly the 60-vote threshold they needed to pass a new temporary funding bill in the Senate, and finally, after all that pain, suffering, and hardship for the American people, Congress was on-track to end the shutdown. The shutdown ended November 12^th, 2025, after the US House passed the legislation, and President Donald Trump signed it into law that very night. The shutdown had lasted 43 days, the longest in US history, and it was finally over.

In this essay, I will ask the critical question, for Democrats, was the shutdown worth it? Was the shutdown a good political ploy for their party, and did it achieve any policy goals? For the Republicans, I will inquire as to whether the outcome of the shutdown vindicated their position from the beginning, and did they win or lose, politically, after all was said and done? I will examine their claim, oft-repeated, that immigrants were to blame for the shutdown. I will respond to the language Republicans used in making this argument about the immigrants and the shutdown. I will consider who was to blame for the shutdown, Democrats or Republicans, after weeks of finger-pointing and blame, back-and-forth, as the shutdown dragged on. Finally, I will conclude with an answer to the question, was it worth it, ultimately, for the Democrats to take a stand against President Trump and the Republicans in Congress, and to shut down the government with their votes. Were the moderate Democrats right in crossing party lines to end the shutdown, or should they have held with the progressives and the majority of the Democratic Party to vote to keep the shutdown open, and the government closed, despite all of the pain felt by the American people? As they did in fact vote to end the shutdown, was this strategy worth it for the Democrats?

After the Republicans gained the 60 votes needed to end the shutdown without making any concessions on extending the subsidies for the Affordable Care Act insurance premiums, they claimed victory. In fact, they argued that the outcome vindicated their position from the very beginning of the shutdown. If the Democrats had voted that way six weeks ago, they could have spared the American people all the pain and suffering of the shutdown, in the first place. In this view, Republicans argued, the shutdown represented an extreme act of bad government and poor policy-making by the Democratic Party. However, Democrats placed the blame for the shutdown back on Republicans. Democrats pointed out that the Republican Party controls both houses of the US Congress and the Presidency, and that the responsibility rested with Republicans to pass legislation, and to open or close the government. As to the Democratic votes on the filibuster in the Senate, the Democrats argued that Republicans refused to negotiate with them at all on the issue of the Obamacare subsidies, and that therefore, the Republicans were to blame. As it turned out, the Republicans never conceded on that issue. Ultimately, the eight Democrats, including one independent, who voted with Republicans to re-open the government, gave up on negotiating with Republicans. In the words of Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, further negotiations with the Republicans on that issue would have been fruitless, since the Republicans were not budging on the issue. I agree that holding out longer for a concession from the Republicans on the Obamacare subsidies would have been pointless. Thus, it did prove to be that the Republican refusal to negotiate caused the Democrats to fail to reach an agreement with Republicans to re-open the government, and ultimately, that same Republican refusal to negotiate caused moderate Democrats to fold, ultimately, and to vote with Republicans to re-open the government. The pain experienced by the American people had grown too great, and it became time to re-open the government.

I believe that there was good reason for the Democrats to begin with a strong attempt at gaining the concessions on the Affordable Care Act from the Republicans, even if that Democratic effort proved fruitless, in the end. I think the Republican position from the beginning was not vindicated by the final outcome on the premium subsidies; the Democrats were justified in trying, even if they ultimately failed to win that outcome in the end in the Senate. It should be noted, however, that Republicans did promise to hold a vote on the Affordable Care Act subsidies by mid-December in the Senate. Moderate Democrats pointed to that concession as an opportunity to hold individual Republican senators accountable for their position for or against the skyrocketing premiums and the subsidies next year in the 2026 mid-term elections. Moderate Democrats plan to press the affordability issue in the mid-terms next year, if Republicans vote to end the subsidies. That vote in the Senate is expected to fail, as the Republicans have shown no interest in extending those subsidies, and the Republicans hold the majority. Democrats did win the ability to put individual Republican senators on-the-record, however, and build for a Democratic victory in the mid-terms (CNN, 11/9/2025; “Senate moves toward ending shutdown after Democratic defectors relent,” News & Observer, Raleigh, NC, digital edition, 11/10/2025; “US Senate compromise sets stage for end to government shutdown,” myEarthlink news, on-line, 11/10/2025).

The next question that arises, naturally, is, did the Republicans win or lose the shutdown, practically, in terms of policy, and politically. It is clear to me that the Republicans did win the shutdown, strictly in terms of policy. As I said above, the Republicans never conceded the Democrats’ primary demand, namely, extending the Obamacare health care subsidies. The moderate Democrats ended up conceding the issue to the Republicans, largely, and so the Republicans did “win” the shutdown. It should be noted, however, that the majority of Democrats voted against re-opening the government, in the end. Also, the Senate Minority Leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, did vote against re-opening the government, as well. The Republicans only needed eight Democratic votes to win in the Senate, however, and the Republicans, ultimately, found those votes.

Politically, however, I think it is a different story. I think Democrats fared far better than Republicans, politically speaking. Polls showed the American people blaming the Republicans slightly more than the Democrats, 50% to Republicans, vs. 43% to Democrats, in one poll (Reuters/Ipsos, late October, myEarthlink, on-line, 11/10/2025). In the election, however, the story was clearer. There, in the national, off-year elections of November 4^th, Democrats destroyed the Republicans. Democrats won the Governors of New Jersey and Virginia by wide margins, as well as electing a Democratic Party socialist mayor of New York City. In California, Prop 50 to redraw the legislative districts to favor Democrats in that state also passed. Democrats won every single significant electoral plum up for grabs in that national election, and by wide margins in New Jersey and Virginia.

U.S. Congress, Washington, DC
© Alisonh29 | http://www.stockfreeimages.com

Even President Trump admitted defeat in that election. President Trump attributed the Republican losses in the election, in part, to the shutdown. He believed that the voters blamed the Republicans more for the shutdown than the Democrats. That blame game cost the Republicans at the polls, according to Trump. Also, President Trump claimed that the other reason the Republicans lost that election was that President Trump, himself, was not on the ballot. The election showed a clear Republican political loss, stemming from the shutdown.

Having said that, I would like to point out that achieving a policy victory, as the Republicans did in the end, is always a plus, politically. The policy victory from the shutdown was a political win for President Trump and the Republican Party. It can only be a mixed bag for the Republicans, however, in sum, since they performed so poorly, in fact, in the election, held near the end of the shutdown. What is more, depending on how Congress acts on the Affordable Care Act subsidies over the next year, the policy win could be very short-lived: Democrats can win on that issue, highlighting the affordability issue, heading into next year’s mid-terms. Control of Congress is at stake, then.

Next up is the question of the immigrants and the shutdown. Republican leadership claimed, repeatedly, that the Democratic position was to try to spend $1.5 trillion to fund illegal immigrants to receive public health benefits. That was the reason the Democrats shut down the government, in this Republican misrepresentation of the Democrats position. The Democratic response, spoken by Senator Chuck Schumer, was that that claim was blatantly false. The Democrats were not fighting for free health care for immigrants who are here illegally. Schumer pointed out that none of the recipients of the Affordable Care Act subsidies are illegal immigrants. They are not eligible to receive this benefit in the first place, according to Schumer. The issue for the Democrats was not the inclusion of immigrants who are here illegally, but rather the extension of the premium subsidies, themselves, for the millions of Americans who are already receiving them. I agree with Senator Chuck Schumer. The immigrants were not the issue (CNN).

I have a note on the language Republicans used in making this argument about the immigrants’ blame for the shutdown. President Trump and the House Speaker, Republican Mike Johnson referred to the immigrants as simply “illegals” or “illegal aliens” (CNN). This is a slur against these people. This language defines this whole group of people, and each person within that group, solely by their immigration status. I can counter this language by recalling a slogan I heard at a pro-immigrant rights rally in New York City, several years ago. The chant was, “No One Is Illegal!”

Now, on to the questions for the Democrats. First, was the shutdown a good strategy for the Democrats, politically? I discussed the election results, earlier in this essay. Democrats won at the ballot-box this year. On the question of the upcoming mid-terms, next year, Democrats cannot claim a policy victory on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies this year. If the Republicans fail to extend the subsidies later this year, and next year, then the Democrats can hold the Republicans in Congress accountable for the spiking costs of health care under the Affordable Care Act. In the US Senate, the Democrats won a vote on the issue, this December. Those senators can be held personally responsible for their votes, when next year’s mid-term elections roll around. Thus, while Democrats cannot claim a direct policy victory out of this shutdown exercise, they can hold Republicans accountable in next year’s mid-terms.

Should the moderate Democrats have broken with the rest of their party and voted with Republicans to re-open the government, or should they have held out for another chance to sway the Republican majority into extending the subsidies? The refrain for the moderate Democrats who voted this way, in the end, was that the costs of the shutdown grew too painful for the American people to hold out any longer. The benefit of extending the subsidies was out of reach, given the Republican intransigence, and causing more pain for the American people would be pointless. I agree. I break with the progressives in the Democratic Party who blamed the moderates for voting this way, and Senator Chuck Schumer, for failing to hold the party together in opposition to voting to re-open the government. Progressives blamed Chuck Schumer for the moderate Democratic votes even though Schumer himself voted against the compromise to re-open the government. I think this blame is misplaced. Also, with millions of Americans potentially going hungry with the SNAP benefit cuts, the millions of air travelers stuck in US airports and going nowhere, and the hundreds of thousands of federal employees going more than six weeks without pay, I think the costs of the shutdown were mounting. I agree with the moderate Democrats that the costs became too great for the American people. While I support the Democratic effort to obtain those health care subsidies in the first place, I think that, eventually, the costs became too great to carry on the fight any longer. It only made sense, to me, to re-open the government, at that point.

In sum, was the government shutdown worth it for the Democrats to have waged, in the first place? Was it worth it for the Democrats to take a stand against President Donald Trump and the Republican party that controls all three branches of the federal government, and in particular, the Congress, at this time? My answer is yes, it was worth it. After the passage of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill in Congress, into law, last summer, the shutdown was worth it. That legislation slashed over $1 trillion dollars from Medicaid and food stamps, aside from this shutdown. On top of that, the Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring this year. In addition to the previous cuts, millions of Americans would see their health care premiums skyrocketing under Obamacare, this year. Republicans had been attacking the Affordable Care Act for over ten years, and now, with majorities in both houses of Congress, they are defunding it. It could be argued that it was critical for the Democrats to take a stand on this issue, alone, at this time. Democrats argued that these shutdown votes on the so-called “clean CR” put forward by the Republicans was their only leverage in the federal government, at this time, and the Democrats were right.

I applaud the Democrats for taking a stand, in the first place, and I applaud the moderate Democrats for having the common sense to vote to re-open the government, after the shutdown became the longest in US history, and the costs to the American people just became too great.

Although the Democratic Party is divided on ending the shutdown, the way it worked out may benefit the Democrats, as a whole, politically. First, Democrats took a stand, as their base was demanding, especially after all of President Trump’s victories this year. Second, in the national election on November 4^th, near the end of the shutdown, as the costs were mounting on the American people, the Democrats clobbered the Republicans, nationally. Next, since the government re-opened, the Democrats would not be blamed for keeping the government closed as the pain was mounting on the American people. Moderate Democrats deserve credit for this decision. Finally, leading up to next year’s mid-term election, Democrats can hold Republicans accountable for spiking health care costs on the issue of affordability. Affordability was a key issue in this year’s elections. It will probably remain an issue into next year’s midterms. If the Republicans fail to extend the Obamacare subsidies, or fail to come up with some other solution to the rising health care costs for Americans under the Affordable Care Act, then Democrats can clobber the Republicans again next year in the mid-terms on the issue of affordability, in general.

As the shutdown turned out, the political winds can favor the Democrats, significantly, heading into next year’s mid-terms. All the Democrats need to do is to play their cards right, from here on out. In conclusion, the Democrats needed to take a stand, and they were right in taking this stand. By conceding the shutdown, in the end, the Democrats, and in particular, the moderate Democrats, deserve credit for bringing us all out of this mess. Simply put, the shutdown had grown too costly to continue any further. Yes, the shutdown was worth it for the Democrats. If they play their cards right from here on out, the shutdown will have been worth it, politically, as well, for the Democrats, heading into next year’s mid-term elections.

—Nicholas Patti

Wake Forest, NC

USA

Additional Sources:

CNN, television, 11/9/2025, 11/12/2025, October, November, 2025; radio, SiriusXM, 10/25, 11/25.

News and Observer, Raleigh, NC: “Congress votes to end shutdown as NC Dem breaks with party in vote for bill,” 11/13/2025, digital edition, newsobserver.com; “Senate moves toward ending shutdown after Democratic defectors relent,” 11/10/2025, digital edition, newsobserver.com.

New York Times, New York, NY: “Food Aid Halt Shatters Faith in Safety Net,” 11/13/2025, p. A1, print edition.

myEarthlink news, on-line: “US government opens back up but deep political divisions remain,” Reuters, 11/13/2025; “US Senate compromise sets stage for end to government shutdown,” 11/10/2025.

WRAL news, WRAL, WRAL+, Raleigh, NC, 2025, NBC, television news.

ABC news, 2025, television

HOPE FOR DEMOCRATS FROM NORTH CAROLINA

March 27, 2025, Wake Forest, NC—Coming out of last Fall’s national election, Democrats can find hope at the state level, including North Carolina. In particular, Democratic NC Governor Josh Stein was elected and is starting his first term, and Democratic NC Attorney General Jeff Jackson won and has since assumed some influence in national politics. The federal level is dominated by Republicans and US President Donald Trump, who began his second term with a whirlwind of executive orders taken right from Project 2025, a far-right, reactionary policy platform that President Trump completely denied any connection to during his election campaign last year.

At the state level, here in North Carolina, however, we now have a sense of where incoming Democratic Governor Josh Stein is taking his first term. In addition, we see how the newly-elected Democratic Attorney General Jeff Jackson is challenging the Trump administration in federal courts to help stall Trump’s reactionary political agenda. In particular, Jackson has enjoined the State of North Carolina to several federal lawsuits countering Trump’s agenda, including specifically, a lawsuit countering an effort by President Trump to amend the US constitution by executive order on the issue of birthright citizenship for children of immigrants.

On day one of President Donald Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of immigrants. Immediately thereafter, several Democratic-leaning states challenged his order in court with a federal lawsuit. In North Carolina, a purple state, newly-elected, Democratic NC Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined those lawsuits. Referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which enshrines citizenship as a constitutional right for all children born in America, Jackson was quoted as saying, “The Constitution leaves no room for executive reinterpretation on this matter—it is clear, settled, and binding. This order seeks to undermine that clarity, creating legal uncertainty and denying fundamental rights to children born in this country” (News & Observer, on-line, newsobserver.com, 1/21/2025; News & Observer, on-line, newsobserver.com, 3/14/2025).

Specifically, President Trump’s order would bar citizenship to any children born in the United States to parents without at least one parent being a citizen or legal permanent resident. Birthright citizenship has been recognized as an established legal right for the children of immigrants in America since the law was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1898 in the case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (News & Observer, on-line, newsobserver.com, 1/21/2025). Donald Trump’s executive order would deny this constitutional right and overturn over a century of US legal precedent.

I think President Trump’s executive order would deny a large part of who we are as Americans. While I acknowledge that cracking down on immigration was a central plank of Trump’s election campaign last year, I think we, as Americans, are still a nation of immigrants. The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor attests to this aspect of American life, in the famous inscription on the statue: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Donald Trump misunderstood this message; he follows the old joke, instead: “Regarding your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Send them my regards.”

As Americans, we must oppose this rights-grab by executive order by Donald Trump. I support North Carolina AG Jeff Jackson’s legal effort, with the 17 other states enjoined to the lawsuit, to overturn this executive order.

The current status of this executive order is that it has been suspended by the federal courts. It will be heard, ultimately, by the US Supreme Court, which will rule on the matter. I can hardly believe that President Trump is attempting to amend the US Constitution by executive order, as affirmed by the US Supreme Court. Last I checked, there exists a drawn-out process for amending the US constitution, which President Trump lacks the political support to achieve in the US Congress or in ¾ of the State legislatures. I only hope that level heads prevail at the US Supreme Court, and the Court chooses not to overturn this basic right for Americans, and not to overturn more than one century of legal precedent in this country.

Our Democratic party hero in North Carolina, NC Attorney General Jeff Jackson, is not entirely in the clear on this lawsuit in North Carolina, however. The Republican majorities in both houses of the NC State legislature have introduced bills to remove his authority to file any lawsuit against the Trump administration in Washington. North Carolina is, of course, a purple state. On March 11, the NC Senate passed a version of this bill. It all comes down to one vote in the NC House. In the NC House, Republicans fall one vote short of a supermajority needed to override the Governor’s veto. If the NC House passes this bill in the near future, as I expect it will, the question becomes, will the Governor veto it? The newly-elected Democratic Governor, NC’s Josh Stein, I believe will probably veto the legislation, I hope. If Gov. Stein vetoes the bills, then it all comes down to one vote in the NC House, on whether the Republican-led legislature can override that veto. If so, then North Carolina would be removed from that federal lawsuit. If not, then NC AG Jeff Jackson can continue to be the Democratic hero from the State of North Carolina that he is now. Jackson could continue to defend our basic rights as Americans from his perch as AG in North Carolina. I hope Jackson will be able to remain a party to his federal lawsuits, including this one, and will be allowed to continue to challenge the Trump administration in court. North Carolina is a purple state, and the battle in North Carolina will be close (News & Observer, 3/23/2025, p. 19A, print edition; News & Observer, on-line, newsobserver.com, 3/14/2025).

This political battle highlights how important in North Carolina the recent election of NC Governor Josh Stein, a Democrat, is, in addition to the election of the Democratic Attorney General. Without Josh Stein, a Democrat, in the Governor’s office, the Republicans would be able to easily block Jeff Jackson from entering this and other federal lawsuits. That is the glimmer of hope for Democrats in the recent national election in the State of North Carolina.

Now, we are seeing how incoming Democratic Governor Josh Stein’s first term is looking, on its own terms, as well. Josh Stein’s first priority was not Washington, in fact, but North Carolina. Stein’s top priority was rebuilding Western North Carolina after the damage wrought by Hurricane Helene. To that end, Stein signed his first piece of legislation into law, working with the Republicans in the State legislature, last week. That state law provides the fourth round of state funding for recovery from Hurricane Helene. Providing funds for recovery to Western North Carolina remains Gov. Josh Stein’s top priority, and he receives largely bi-partisan support on the issue (News & Observer, 3/23/2025, p. 19A, print edition).

On Wednesday, March 19, Governor Stein presented his first budget to the NC General Assembly and the public at-large. Stein found some agreement and some disagreement on various issues within North Carolina from the Republicans who lead both houses of the State Assembly. On the famous Democratic Party issue of teacher pay, going back to the former NC Governor, Democrat Roy Cooper, Stein has found agreement from NC Republicans. Stein wishes to raise starting teacher pay to $53,000 by 2027, according to Dawn Baumgartner Vaughan, writing in the News & Observer (3/23/2025, p. 19A, print edition). Stein wants North Carolina to be “the highest in the Southeast.” Similarly, Republican NC House Speaker Destin Hall was quoted as saying in the News & Observer that he wants North Carolina to be “as highly ranked in the South as we can be” (3/23/2025, p. 19A, print edition). I hope Stein and the Republican leadership in North Carolina can make significant headway in raising teacher pay in North Carolina.

Gov. Stein and Republicans in North Carolina disagree on private school vouchers, state income taxes, and a statewide school bond issue. Gov. Stein has also drawn attention to the federal effort in Congress by Republican leadership there to cut Medicaid funding. If the federal government cuts Medicaid by $880 billion, then North Carolina would see its Medicaid expansion evaporate. This issue took ten years of wrangling to adopt in North Carolina, and it would be gone in a breath, if Republicans in the US Congress slash the program. NC Gov. Stein mentioned this in his first State of the State address earlier this year, but has not made it an issue otherwise in North Carolina, at this time.

Governor Josh Stein’s first term is coming into vision, now that his first proposed budget has been released. We are looking at June for the NC legislature to pass its budget, and then send the budget to Gov. Stein for his signature. This timeline is only tentative, I should note, however, since the Republicans in the NC state legislature have been known to disagree with themselves, and pass extremely late budgets, in the recent past. In any case, business in North Carolina this year seems to be proceeding at a regular pace, under Governor Josh Stein and the Republican legislature, with or without US President Donald Trump.

That being said, Democrats are lucky to have elected their own party in the Governor’s office and the NC Attorney General’s office this past year. The Democrats in the executive branch of North Carolina are currently able to provide a counter-weight to President Donald Trump’s reactionary agenda in Washington this year. North Carolina remains a purple state, but the Democrats here will not remain silent.

On the issue of birthright citizenship, for example, as currently guaranteed in the US Constitution, Democrats in North Carolina have joined the fight against President Trump. Time will tell whether NC Attorney General Jeff Jackson will be able to stay in this court battle, and time will tell how much of President Donald Trump’s agenda will stand or fall in the halls and the courts of Washington, DC. I hope we can block Trump’s reactionary agenda.

—Nicholas Patti

Wake Forest, NC

USA

Additional Sources:

News and Observer, Raleigh, NC: 3/23/2025, p. 19A, print edition; 1/21/2025, on-line, newsobserver.com; “Will the Supreme Court Overturn Birthright Citizenship? What to know,” 3/14/2025, on-line, newsobserver.com; 2/27/2025, on-line, newsobserver.com; “NC Republicans move fast on DOGE, DEI, Helene, immigration. How 2025 session is playing out,” 3/14/2025, on-line, newsobserver.com.

WRAL news, WRAL, WRAL+, Raleigh, NC, 2025, NBC, television news.

CNN, 2025.

ABC news, 2025, television news.

Trump Guilty Verdict Tarnishes Image: Stay Outta Jail

by Nicholas Patti

June 1, 2024, Raleigh, NC—The following classic rock song lyric tells the story of Donald Trump’s hush money trial guilty verdict while running for president as the presumptive Republican party candidate:

…The jig is up, the news is out,

They finally found me.

The renegade

Who had it made

Retrieved for a bounty,

Nevermore to go astray,

The judge will have revenge today,

On a wanted man.

—“Renegade,” Styx, 1978

In which song lyric, former President Donald Trump stars as the renegade, Judge Juan M. Merchan stars as the judge, and Trump’s sentencing date of July 11 is the day the judge will have his revenge on Donald Trump, the wanted man.

This narrative is exactly the one coming out of the Trump campaign and Trump himself in his speeches at this time. President Trump is wanted for challenging President Biden for the high office, and all of President Trump’s personal legal problems, including this conviction by a jury in Manhattan on felony charges, are the result of a political witch-hunt personally directed by current President Joe Biden from the White House in Washington.

We should note a very basic, critical reading of the song text, literary critic-style, as it applies to former President Donald Trump, as well. Note that in the song, the “renegade,” aka Donald Trump, is the hero, the protagonist. The judge, representing law-and-order, is the antagonist, the anti-hero, or the villain. President Trump certainly portrays the real-life judge, Judge Juan Merchan, as the villain, or anti-hero, as well. In accusing current President Biden of targeting Trump, politically, with the legal system in this case, as in all others, President Trump casts current President Biden as a starring anti-hero, or villain, as well. In this way, former President Trump flips the script on current President Biden. President Trump, the now-convicted felon, becomes the hero, the good guy, while his opponent, current President Biden, becomes the anti-hero, or villain. Thus, although convicted, himself, of hiding a hush money payment to a porn star actress for political gain in a former presidential election, President Trump accuses President Biden and our country’s legal system of corruption.

Oh well. My only advice to former President Trump at this time is to listen to the old adage: “the road to ruin is paved with good intentions.” In this case, former President Trump’s good intention is to return to the White House via the presidential election this November. The road to ruin for President Trump would be to anger the judge at sentencing that leads former President Trump to see the inside of a jail cell for whatever term, instead of, or in addition to, winning back the White House. Former President Trump may think twice of playing the victim in this case from a vengeful jury and judge to the extent that former President Trump makes a convincing case to the judge, come his sentencing hearing on July 11, for the judge to throw the book at him, landing former President Trump in jail, wholly unnecessarily so.

TrumpGoogleImage — Former President Donald Trump

I, for one, hope President Trump avoids any jail time on these 34 felony counts that he was just convicted of. What, in essence, is Donald Trump convicted of? Essentially, he is convicted of being a wealthy man and celebrity, himself, who allegedly slept with a porn star actress, Stormy Daniels, in 2006, and maybe a Playboy Playmate or two, Karen McDougal, and then paying one of these sex models hush money, in this case Stormy Daniels, and then concealing the payment to make himself look good in the middle of a presidential election, 2016, which he subsequently won (“Guilty,” News & Observer, Raleigh, NC, digital edition, 5/31/2024). I say, big deal. So what?

I agree with President Trump, in one of his courtside chats, as seen live over the past few weeks during the trial, viewed on CNN this May, in which he said, “I did nothing wrong” (approximate quote). Personally, I do not feel that sleeping with a Playboy Playmate, or a young porn star actress, is terribly wrong. The most you should get for that is a starring role on “Ain’t Misbehavin’” (fictional). In fact, President Trump had a day on “Access Hollywood,” years ago, I believe it was said, and more recently, currently, he had a starring role on various 24-hour cable news channels in Stormy Daniels testimony in this trial as to his participation in their mutual sex scene (which President Trump still wholly denies ever happened) (“Guilty,” News & Observer, Raleigh, NC, digital edition, 5/31/2024; CNN; Fox News). This time, the courtroom testimony was not directly televised, either. This, simply, is not criminal.

At another point in one of his courtside chats during this trial, President Trump pondered, “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges” (approximate quote). President Trump is not claiming to be Mother Teresa in this scenario. He is claiming to be a regular American man with a sex drive who was running for president. We do not require our presidents in this country to be Mother Teresa, witness President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, also, and his White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. President Clinton remained in office. Are these presidents acting in an immoral manner? Grow up! We do not require our Presidents to be Mother Teresa—oh wait, in President Trump’s case, now, in this case in Manhattan, maybe we do. President Trump was convicted of his misconduct, after all.

What else did President Trump do, as charged in this case? He falsified business records to make himself look good to the electorate, thus practicing fraud on the voting population in 2016. Please. I remember that election. The Stormy Daniels case was all over the news at the time. Then, it disappeared. Everyone in America already knew who Donald Trump was. This came as no surprise to anyone. The fact that the story did not explode any worse than it did, that candidate Trump, at the time, did, in fact, contain the damage, is simply not criminal.

“I paid legal fees to a lawyer. Michael Cohen was my lawyer,” President Trump said (approximate quote), in another instance of courtside chat during this trial (viewed on CNN). That is, in fact, true. I think it is garbage that Trump needed to note that it was a hush money repayment to this lawyer. I do not think he is required to go into that level of detail into what the payment to his lawyer was for. The fact is that Michael Cohen fronted the money for the payment, then President Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen. It was, in fact, a payment from Trump to his lawyer. The point of the prosecution is what the payment was for: a re-imbursement of a hush money payment, not a “legal service.” Michael Cohen was Donald Trump’s attorney acting as a fixer, and as such, was paid by Donald Trump for his service, including and specifically, the hush money payment. I do not think President Trump should have been required to specify what Michael Cohen was doing with the money President Trump paid him: the fact is he paid him, his lawyer and fixer, the money, and noted it as such.

This act influenced the election. One, the hush money payment itself is not illegal. The concealment in the business records is the crime Trump is accused and convicted of committing, in concert with Trump’s effort to influence, i.e., “defraud,” the electorate. I am not concerned with the way Trump noted his payment to Michael Cohen in his business record, as I pointed out in the prior paragraph.

Also, I am not concerned that President Trump attempted to look good to the electorate in the middle of a presidential election (2016). I think Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, said as much. It is the job of a candidate to try to look good, to present his best face forward, to the electorate in an election for higher office. You would expect the same of any presidential candidate.

I have addressed all aspects of the crime President Trump was convicted of. President Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsification of records. I do not think President Trump should have been convicted. The Wall Street Journal editorial board points out that the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor charge of falsification of records had already expired before this trial (5/31/2024, p. A14). Only when combining the falsification with the intent to influence the 2016 election do these charges rise to the level of a felony, and can be prosecuted at this time. For this, a jury of twelve good New Yorkers found former President Donald J. Trump guilty on all counts.

Great. What is essentially non-criminal activity is elevated to the level of a felony, on 34 counts. I find this quite ridiculous, actually. Nonetheless, I respect the courts of New York State and New York City. President Trump has the right to appeal. The felony conviction is now a legal fact for President Trump, as any conviction is a fact for any criminal defendant, upon conviction.

The good thing is that both campaigns, President Biden’s and President Trump’s, point to the election this November as the determinant of the winner of the Oval Office for the next term, and not this trial and conviction of President Trump. All media sources say being a convicted felon does not disqualify President Trump from serving a second term as President. The election, therefore, is still on, just as before.

The main difference is with President Trump’s image and reputation, his name. There is simply no way around the fact that President Trump’s newfound status as a convicted felon will tarnish President Trump’s brand, and potentially, hurt his chances with undecided or with law-and-order voters.

That is on the one hand. On the other hand, perhaps Donald Trump’s supporters, his base, will be inspired by this trial and the unfortunate outcome for President Trump. If he inspires his base to work even harder to turn out loyal Republican voters, then this conviction could, in fact, help President Trump in this election. That is unlikely, but his base is inspired, and the future course of this campaign and election is unknown.

The difficulty for President Trump at this time is to campaign vigorously, once again, without angering the judge from this current trial, who has yet to sentence President Trump. Many pundits say that while a jail sentence is possible, up to four years, in fact, usually white collar criminals for this crime and lowest level of a felony do not, in fact, have to serve any jail time (ABC News Special Coverage, ABC World News Tonight, 5/30/2024; National Public Radio (NPR), “Live special coverage,” 5/30/2024). Trump may get off with a sentence of only probation, perhaps, and still, yet never have to see the inside of a jail cell for these crimes. That would certainly benefit President Trump, and leave him yet the time and freedom necessary to campaign for President this year. I think something along these lines would be best for our former President, and for our country. It is inconvenient for our country that President Trump’s personal legal problems hit us as a country in the middle of a presidential election. Our country, I think, would be better served with less chaos during this presidential election, not more chaos.

That said, I do not wish to make any excuses for former President Trump. Whenever someone is convicted of a crime for their behavior, I think it is not the time to blame “the system.” Rather, it is time for someone, anyone, if guilty of the behavior, which has been ruled criminal in a legitimate jury trial anywhere in the United States of America, at the point of conviction it is high time to begin to take responsibility for his or her actions, and not to blame everyone else. President Trump would do well to follow this advice, especially regarding his sentencing. Perhaps, President Trump should move on from playing the victim, and return to normal, negative campaigning about President Biden, once again. Remind the American people that they like President Trump better, that he is more of a regular guy than President Biden may appear to be.

Take all of this as free, non-partisan advice for President Trump. For me, this conviction is just one more reason for me, believe it or not, NOT to vote for President Trump. My mind was not changed by this trial. For purely political and philosophical reasons, I did not plan to vote for President Trump. I had already planned to vote for President Biden. Guess what. After this trial, conviction or not, I still plan to vote for President Biden. I am politically progressive. President Biden is closer to my politics. President Biden is doing a fine job up there in the White House, I believe, and there is no reason to change it up now.

Now that President Trump is a convicted felon, I feel no reason now to vote for him. In my mind, this unfortunate status, even if derived from a questionable criminal conviction, is another reason NOT to vote for him.

I do not suspect that, if handled well by the Trump campaign, I do not think this conviction will turn off many voters. In 2016, no one cared about candidate Trump’s various extravagances. He won that election in a fair campaign and vote. In 2020, by the way, I think President Biden won in a fair election, also. I hope that 2024 will be a free and fair election, as well. Whether this 2024 presidential election will in fact be a free and fair election, I think, remains to be seen. As a country, we are operating under our American system of jurisprudence. Local judges retain authority, in this way, over our national election. It remains to be seen whether, in the end, we can determine that this year’s election was, in fact, free and fair.

In any case, I suspect this criminal conviction may affect the voting decisions of a smaller portion of the electorate. There are polls. They vary. It is not worth delving through the poll numbers here. I think most people already know both presidential candidates, Biden and Trump. This conviction of Trump may make some difference to the electorate, namely, to independents and law-and-order voters, but I suspect, in balance, it will not make that much of a difference, overall.

I happen to support the voting rights of felons, by the way, even though President Trump is now an example of one. How odd it is that he will probably not be allowed to vote in this presidential election in the State of Florida, on this basis, but he can be elected, still, and serve in the highest office of this country, nonetheless.

I hope in all of his criminal convictions and charges, in New York and around this country, that President Trump does not have to go to jail. I do not plan to vote for President Trump, however, and I still hope that President Biden wins the election. RFK, Jr., becomes more of an alternative to both candidates, as well, out of this criminal conviction of President Trump.

RFKImage — Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

My main advice to President Trump is, at this time, before his sentencing for this New York felony conviction, my advice is, stay outta jail.

—Nicholas Patti

Raleigh, NC

USA

Source list:

This blog: post, 4/1/2023.

News and Observer, Raleigh, NC, 5/31/2024, digital edition:

“Guilty,” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; “Ex-president, felon and candidate: 5 takeaways from Trump’s conviction,” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; “Trump conviction: What now?” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; “Biden fundraises off Trump’s conviction,” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; “Trump verdict adds twist to 2024 race: A convicted felon,” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; “Trump’s other criminal cases: How they compare,” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; “Trump’s guilty verdict prompts sharp reactions from lawmakers,” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; “What NC lawmakers say about Trump’s guilty verdict,” ExtraExtra section, digital edition; Headline, “Triangle Now” section, digital edition, 5/31/2024.

Wall Street Journal, editorial, New York, NY, 5/31/2024, print edition, p. A14.

CNN, 5/29/2024, 5/30/2024, 5/31/2024, throughout trial in 5/2024.

ABC News Special Coverage, ABC World News Tonight, 5/30/2024.

Fox News, during trial, 5/2024.

WRAL News, NBC affiliate, Raleigh, NC, 7 pm local news broadcast, 5/30/2024.

National Public Radio (NPR), “live special coverage,” 5/30/2024, heard over WUNC, 91.5, Chapel Hill, NC; NPR News, during trial, 5/2024.

Image credits:

Google search, 6/1/2024.

My Poetry Book

Read and enjoy these poems that range from suburban Charlotte, NC, to homelessness in New York City to a look-back at life under former President Trump’s administration, pre-pandemic, in the poem, “News Junkie.” I have since moved to the Raleigh, NC area. Note that my price per item includes taxes and shipping and handling for the order.

$15.00