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

[Mick2]

Doesn't matter what his reason was, he was convicted of a campaign finance violation. That means he acknowledged he committed a crime. Which is obvious since he made a $130,000 in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign when the legal limit was only $2,700.

Your story keeps changing. What is it a "donation" to the campaign or was he reimbursed? You can't seem to decide here.

 

[Political-Junkie]

"He spoke for himself"

Yeah, and what the FEC considered illegal and not. Did the law magically change on this matter in the 3 years (or whatever it was) that he left the FEC? Yeah, think not.

The FEC either drops cases, issues penalties(like fines), or makes special criminal referral to the Justice Department. They dropped this case without so much as a fine. Did you want a current member to get and tell the jury that they FEC dropped the case years earlier without so much as a fine? Bragg certiainly didn't. Don't make yourself sound more stupid.

14 years earlier, but the point is you indicated the FEC said there was no violation but the truth is, the FEC never said there was no violation. Michael Cohen pled guilty to a violation.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Your story keeps changing. What is it a "donation" to the campaign or was he reimbursed? You can't seem to decide here.

I didn't say it was a donation. I said it was an in-kind "contribution." And he was reimbursed, but Trump didn't report the reimbursement as campaign related. Instead, he falsified he records to conceal Cohen's crime.

 

[Mick2]

14 years earlier, but the point is you indicated the FEC said there was no violation but the truth is, the FEC never said there was no violation. Michael Cohen pled guilty to a violation.

Cohen made a blank brush plea to avoid prison. We already know this. He probably would have plead guilty to ******* sheep, too, if it would have kept him out. LOL. Either way, though, the FEC chair was prepared to talk about that, too. Certainly relevant testimony. Did Cohen do it out of donation generosity or did he do with the expectation of being reimbursed? If he did expecting to be reimbursed then Cohen couldn't have have guilty of an excessive campaign contribution because he NEVER made one. All of this would have been easily settled by testimony fo the FEC's former chairman. He would cleared it up on questioning from both sides. Seems egregious in that light to block it now like Merchan did, doesn't it?

And, regardless, the position your trying for here wasn't the position Bragg took. He instructed the jury to consider Trump guilty of a myriad of crimes including federal election law the former FEC chair was going to challenge. It wasn't about Cohen.

 

[Mick2]

the FEC never said there was no violation.

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue here. I said the former FEC chair was going to testify that federal electioin law not broken. Expert testimony.

And if the FEC thought there was a violation....let alone criminal act.......then why did they hand down no penalty whatsoever? Campaigns are fined all the time for violations of law. Got an answer?

 

[Political-Junkie]

Cohen made a blank brush plea to avoid prison. We already know this. He probably would have plead guilty to ******* sheep, too, if it would have kept him out. LOL. Either way, though, the FEC chair was prepared to talk about that, too. Certainly relevant testimony. Did Cohen do it out of donation generosity or did he do with the expectation of being reimbursed? If he did expecting to be reimbursed then Cohen couldn't have have guilty of an excessive campaign contribution because he NEVER made one. All of this would have been easily settled by testimony fo the FEC's former chairman. He would cleared it up on questioning from both sides. Seems egregious in that light to block it now like Merchan did, doesn't it?

And, regardless, the position your trying for here wasn't the position Bragg took. He instructed the jury to consider Trump guilty of a myriad of crimes. It wasn't about Cohen.

He was convicted of a campaign finance violation. An obvious one for an in-kind contribution of $130,000, far in excess of the legal limit of $2,700.

The underlying crime which elevated Trump's crime to felony was based on him conspiracy with Cohen to promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means. Thr unlawful means was the illegal in-kind contribution.

 

[Mick2]

I didn't say it was a donation. I said it was an in-kind "contribution."

An "in-kind contribution" is nebulous and cannot measured then. It's just a service provided. By definition it cannot excessive, stupid. You think you can be charged for knocking on too many doors if you volunteered for a campaign to do it? When would the threshold be reached? Derp.


Man, you really are flailing here. LOL

 

[Political-Junkie]

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue here. I said the former FEC chair was going to testify that federal electioin law not broken. Expert testimony.

And if the FEC thought there was a violation....let alone criminal act.......then why did they hand down no penalty whatsoever? Campaigns are fined all the time for violations of law. Got an answer?

Someone said Cohen committed a FEC violation and you replied the FEC said otherwise.

No, the FEC never said otherwise. Smith was no longer chairman and was no longer with the FEC.

 

[Mick2]

The underlying crime which elevated Trump's crime to felony was based on him conspiracy with Cohen to promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.

Trump was not indicted on election conspiracies, though. So the jury should have instructed to the fact he was never found guilty of such in order to meet the requirement of the "other crime". Yet, that was just one of many imaginary crimes that Bragg made up that the jury could consider Trump having made "just because" Bragg said so.

 

[Political-Junkie]

An "in-kind contribution" is nebulous and cannot measured then. It's just a service provided. By definition it cannot excessive, stupid. You think you can be charged for knocking on too many doors if you volunteered for a campaign to do it? When would the threshold be reached? Derp.


Man, you really are flailing here. LOL

Cohen's contribution had a value of $130,000. He was convicted for that. If you were right, he would have fought it in court and won.

 

[Mick2]

Someone said Cohen committed a FEC violation and you replied the FEC said otherwise.

I said the FEC threw the Daniels NDA case regarding Trump out. Try to keep up, kid.

And, yes, the former FEC chair could have been asked about Cohen, too. That's what the FEC does. Why so frightened by that testimony?

 

[Mick2]

Cohen's contribution had a value of $130,000.

There is no value on an reimbursement because the monetary element is removed since Cohen got the money back. The "in-kind contribution" was him provide the legal work to execute it. That's literally the definition of such a contribution.

You can donate money, goods, services, or time. You are finally agreed that Cohen donated no money because he was going to be reimbursed. That makes it a function of time and legal services as the element he contributed to the campaign. Those by definition cannot be measured monetarily as their value is subjective.

Judas Priest, man, how do you come up with this shit?

 

[Political-Junkie]

Trump was not indicted on election conspiracies, though. So the jury should have instructed to the fact he was never found guilty of such in order to meet the requirement of the "other crime". Yet, that was just one of many imaginary crimes that Bragg made up that the jury could consider Trump having made "just because" Bragg said so.

Trump didn't have to be indicted on the underlying charge. The prosecution merely had to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt thst he conspired with Cohen promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means. Seems the prosecution succeeded.

 

[Political-Junkie]

I said the FEC threw the Daniels NDA case regarding Trump out. Try to keep up, kid.

And, yes, the former FEC chair could have been asked about Cohen, too. That's what the FEC does. Why so frightened by that testimony?

Again, someone pointed out Cohen committed a FEC violation and you replied the FEC said otherwise. But non the FEC did not say otherwise.

Do I need to repost your post to show that's what you said?

 

[Political-Junkie]

There is no value on an reimbursement because the monetary element is removed since Cohen got the money back. The "in-kind contribution" was him provide the legal work to execute it. That's literally the definition of such a contribution.

You can donate money, goods, services, or time. You are finally agreed that Cohen donated no money because he was going to be reimbursed. That makes it a function of time and legal services as the element he contributed to the campaign. Those by definition cannot be measured monetarily as their value is subjective.

Judas Priest, man, how do you come up with this shit?

According to Trump's own records, Cohen was not reimbursed for making an in-kind contribution to Trump's campaign. It's the whole reason Trump was indicted and convicted.

 

[Mick2]

Trump didn't have to be indicted on the underlying charge. The prosecution merely had to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt thst he conspired with Cohen promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means. Seems the prosecution succeeded.

Thhe jury, however, wasn't told they had to be unanimous on what Trump did unlawfully. They were basically to consider anything and it "just was" so because Bragg said it. Without a unanimous jury verdict on such a manner the law does not consider it an actionable criminal offense nor do legal avenues consider it a crime committed. Your felony gets tossed on that ground alone. You're too easy. LOL

 

[konradv]

Does it whip the ass of the law degree and experience that you claim you have that makes you more of an expert on Consitutional Law than our Supreme Court justices?

At least I have real insights, not just MAGA slop.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Thhe jury, however, wasn't told they had to be unanimous on what Trump did unlawfully. They were basically to consider anything and it "just was" so because Bragg said it. Without a unanimous jury verdict on such a manner the law does not consider it an actionable criminal offense nor do legal avenues consider it a crime committed. Your felony gets tossed on that ground alone. You're too easy. LOL

All the jury had to agree on was that Trump falsified business records to conceal another crime. There was no obligation for the jury to agree on what that other crime was.

And it was the judge, not Bragg, who gave those instructions to the jury.

 

[Mick2]

According to Trump's own records, Cohen was not reimbursed for making an in-kind contribution to Trump's campaign.

Let's go over this again. An "in-kind contribution" does not have tangible monetary value attached it. It by definition cannot be reimbursed. What you are referring to payment for goods and services provided. Of course, if they receive payment for services they are no longer a "contribution". It's a campaign expense for Trump and Trump can donate however much he wants to his own campaign. There is no legal limit.

 

[Mick2]

All the jury had to agree on was that Trump falsified business records to conceal another crime.

Correct! Which means a jury(this one or another one) has to find him unanimously guilty of some specific act before the law can consider it as a crime committed.