Why Do Trump Supporters Have Such A Hard Time Admitting He's A Convicted Felon?

[WorldWatcher]

No man would call a whore and ask her how much can he pay her. She and McDougall extorted him. He either paid them or they would tell the press. Both should have been prosecuted. Sex is not a crime. Both women consented.

If Daniels went to Trump and said pay me $$$ or I go to the press, then that would be extortion.

However that isn't what happened, she never approached Trump or the campiagn for money. She (through her attorney) was shopping the story to various news outlets. Under the "Catch-n-Kill" scheme developed by Trump, Cohen, and Pecker, Pecker being in the media would keep his ear out for such stories. Therefore it was the Trump camp that contacted her with a money offer to kill the story. That is NOT extortion. This series of evens was testified to by Pecker in court.

WW

 

[Mick2]

Cohen was convicted of the crime Trump was laundering money for.

Huh? Who was laundering money? Trump wanted to strike an NDA with an accuser. He sent his attorney to negotiate terms and they came to a legal agreement. Both sides and their attorneys agreed to it. Cohen paid the money for the agreement and then Trump reimbursed Cohen for the work and payment. Trump then listed those payments to his attorney as legal expenses. That's exactly what they were. Trump's payments to Cohen weren't "laundered". Do you even know what that word means? They were a direct reimbursement for legal work done. Cohen's own shenaningans of evading paying his personal/business taxes or lying under oath was all his own doing.

What was the crime in striking up a legal NDA with another person and then paying/reimbursing your personal attorney who did the work to do it? No Dim has yet been able to come up with anything.

 

[Delldude]

Trump wasn't indicted for Federal campaign violations.

WW

Why then did the prosecution argue these points?

The prosecutors then proceeded to expressly state that it was “a fact” that federal election violations occurred in this case and that Trump ordered those violations.

 

[Mick2]

Have you even bothered to do ANY research? It was clearly stated at the trial the laws that he broke, which were there for decades and which were broken by 7 other people in the past and who were also prosecuted and found guilty!!!!!!!!

Trump wasn't charged with another crime....let alone convicted. He attorney struck a legal agreement with an accuser. That's legal. The attorney paid the money to complete the legal terms of the NDA. That's legal. Trump then paid/reimbursed Cohen for it. That's legal. Trump listed those payments to his attorney as legal expenses. That's legal. Those are simpe FACTS that cannot be refuted. Not some nonense about "7 other people". WTF? You believe there were 7 other people involved here in the NDA? You are not sane.

All I ask is what was the crime? Would seem simple if there was one.

Robbery: Broke in with a gun and stole items

Murder: Shot the suspect in the back

Rape: Forced against her will

The crime here? Crickets, crickets. crickets.

Trump has already been criminally released from all charges. It's about expunging from the record now and justice. This was phony.

 

[Rawley]

Testimony in court

Enter scumbag Cohen. A scumbag and whore/extortionists are your star witnesses. And Merchan denied the former FEC Commissioner the ability to tell the jury that the NDA payment was not a campaign violation.

 

[Rawley]

Felonious Falsification of Business Records under New York State criminal coded.

WW

True. They did list out the campaign violation in the complaint. Another f*ckup by Merchan.

 

[konradv]

A verdict is not the completion . Another premature ejaculation

A verdict that will still be in effect on 1/21/29. Tick, tock.

 

[Mick2]

Enter scumbag Cohen. A scumbag and whore/extortionists are your star witnesses. And Merchan denied the former FEC Commissioner the ability to tell the jury that the NDA payment was not a campaign violation.

Most damning part of all was Merchan blocking defense expert witness testimony. The FEC commissioner's testimony would have completely sunk the case. Merchan knew it. Lady justice was not blind that day. That is just one of many reasons the case will be reversed on the appeal.

 

[Mick2]

A verdict that will still be in effect on 1/21/29. Tick, tock.

So if the case is still draggin throug the appeal process on that day before it gets tossed and then? What would change the case on 1/21/29 from any other day?

You don't seem too bright. Just last night you claimed you were more of an expert on Constitutional Law than the justice on the United States Supreme Court. You're a very strange kid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s not what witnesses are for.

If there was no FEC violation, what turned the misdemeanors into felonies?

 

[Marener]

If there was no FEC violation, what turned the misdemeanors into felonies?

There was an FEC violation. Cohen was convicted of it.

 

[Rawley]

Most damning part of all was Merchan blocking defense expert witness testimony. The FEC commissioner's testimony would have completely sunk the case. Merchan knew it. Lady justice was not blind that day. That is just one of many reasons the case will be reversed on the appeal.

No question. Allowing the whore to testify at such length was also reversible error.

 

[Rawley]

There was an FEC violation.

nope

Cohen was convicted of it.

Never proven

 

[Mick2]

Trump wasn't indicted for Federal campaign violations.

You're right, stupid! Which blows you up and the "other crime" needing cover up. There was none.

Then why did the judge allow Bragg to lie to the jury and tell them they could consider Trump guility of federal campaign crimes because Bragg says so in order to meet the "other crime" requirement? That's why the FEC commissioner's testimony was vital. He was going to testify that the FEC doesn't consider NDAs to be federal campaign violations/crimes.

 

[konradv]

So if the case is still draggin throug the appeal process on that day before it gets tossed and then? What would change the case on 1/21/29 from any other day?

You don't seem too bright. Just last night you claimed you were more of an expert on Constitutional Law than the justice on the United States Supreme Court. You're a very strange kid.

MAGA lies.

 

[Mick2]

There was an FEC violation.

FEC says otherwise. And the FEC commissioner wasn't allowed to testify on the matter by the judge.

 

[Mick2]

MAGA lies

You just can't name the lie. LOL. You tap out too easily after looking stupid, stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are missing what he was charged with (New York State Felonious Falsification of Businss Records) and the MOTIVATION as to why he did what he did.

Let's take a murder case. A husband kills his wife. The prosecution presents evidence that:

• The husband recently had a large life insurance policy taken out on his wife,
• There was evidence presented that the wife was having an affair with the pool girl.

The jury then evaluates the facts on the commission of the crime (murder), then then have to determine motivation - money or infidelity. All 12 jurors have to agree on the events of the crime. They DO NOT have to agree with the motivation.

The fact that Trump falsified business records to cover up Cohens crime was presented. Cohen was charged and found guilty of federal campaign finance fraud. The prosecution presented that to the jury.

So yes there was an FEC violation, and yes there was an FEC conviction - but it was Cohens. Trump wanted to retry the federal conviction of someone else as part of his case. That is not allowed. Once a federal conviction is finalized, then it is a considered a fact and not open to relitigation.

WW

The fact that Trump falsified business records to cover up Cohens crime was presented.

Cohen didn't make a campaign contribution, why would Trump need to cover up something that didn't happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cohen paid Daniels $230,000 to remain quiet about her claims

An NDA, not a campaign contribution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

MANHATTAN (CN) — A New York federal judge on Wednesday signaled he was unlikely to grant President Donald Trump a transfer of his so-called “hush money” case from state court to Manhattan federal court, where Trump is hopeful to present presidential immunity arguments that would overturn his 2024 criminal conviction for falsifying business records to cover up payments to bury bad press in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

“Here, there’s nothing for me to do, and I’m not sure that saying ‘here’s the judgment, go appeal it’ is sufficient,” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said Wednesday in response to Trump’s motion to sign off on the case transfer to the Southern District of New York federal jurisdiction.

“The fact that someone is unhappy with the strategic decision they got does not render it good cause,” Hellerstein, a Bill Clinton appointee, told Trump’s lawyers during oral arguments that ran nearly three hours.

A jury in Manhattan state supreme court convicted Trump in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, which stemmed from a sweeping and salacious hush money scheme aimed at quashing bad press during his 2016 presidential campaign.

The jury found that Trump orchestrated his former personal attorney and “fixer” Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who Trump was concerned would share details from their 2006 sexual encounter at an inopportune time during the election. When repaying Cohen, Trump disguised the payments as standard legal fees, sometimes signing those illicit checks from the Oval Office during his first presidential term, witnesses testified.

New York judge excoriates Trump’s timing in bid to scrap hush money conviction

The Second Circuit ordered a Manhattan federal judge to reconsider his decision to keep Trump’s falsified business records case in state court instead of removing it to federal court, where Trump can seek to have it tossed post-trial on assertions of sweeping presidential immunity.

courthousenews.com

for falsifying business records to cover up payments to bury bad press in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

It's not illegal to pay to bury bad press. Or to hide the payment for an NDA.