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

[Mick2]

At least I have real insights

Like claiming you know more about Constitutional law than the Supreme Court even though you have zero education and experience on the matter?

It's whoppers like that that "insights". We love to see how stupid you people really are.

 

[Mick2]

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.

If this jury didn't unanimously describe another crime and no jury anywhere else didn't unanimously describe another crime then our court system legally must consider the person "not guilty" of the other cirme. There cannot be another crime by someone who is not guilty.

You're like a toy. Too stupid to realize you're being played here.

 

[Political-Junkie]

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 permanent 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.

It had a tangible value when Cohen paid Daniels $130,000.

If you were right, Trump's defense would have included your claim, but it didn’t. Trump never made your claim in his defense.

And I agree, it's true that Trump could have donated as much as he wanted towards his own presidential campaign. It's unfortunate for him that he filed that $130,000 as a business expense and not a campaign finance expense. Had he, he wouldn't be a felon today.

 

[Political-Junkie]

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.

Show where statute 175.10 states you have to be convicted of another crime? I believe it says you just have to conceal another crime. It's up to the jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records to conceal another crime.

 

[Mick2]

It had a tangible value when Cohen paid Daniels $130,000.

And was reimbursed. Therefore, Cohen wasn't donating that amount.

Around and around we go. The left-wing mind is a deranged place.

 

[Political-Junkie]

If this jury didn't unanimously describe another crime and no jury anywhere else didn't unanimously describe another crime then our court system legally must consider the person "not guilty" of the other cirme. There cannot be another crime by someone who is not guilty.

You're like a toy. Too stupid to realize you're being played here.

That's simply not true. In this case, the jury only had to find Trump guilty of charges he was indicted on. He wasn't indicted on the other crime. The jury only had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he falsified business records to conceal another crime.

 

[Political-Junkie]

And was reimbursed. Therefore, Cohen wasn't donating that amount.

Around and around we go. The left-wing mind is a deranged place.

It was reimbursed illegally. Hence the indictment.

 

[Mick2]

Show where statute 175.10 states you have to be convicted of another crime? I believe it says you just have to conceal another crime. It's up to the jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records to conceal another crime.

The Supreme Court has held time and time again that if an secondary aggravating factor exists that warrants of an upgrade a criminal charge against a defendant (such as misdemeanor to a felony) that the aggravating factor must also be proven to have occurred beyond a reasonable doubt (aka only by unanimous jury or guilty plea). He did something somewhere sometime because I say so isn't a valid aggravating factor to upgrade a criminal charge. A jury (this one or a previous one) must unanimously agre that the aggravating factor happened.

 

[Mick2]

It was reimbursed illegally. Hence the indictment.

Now the simple issuing of checks to your attorney is illegal?

Oh lord! LOL

 

[konradv]

Like claiming you know more about Constitutional law than the Supreme Court even though you have zero education and experience on the matter?

I never claimed that. How would you know what experience I’ve had? Just another case of MAGAts piling one lie on top of another

 

[konradv]

Now the simple issuing of checks to your attorney is illegal?

Not simple once the attorney testifies what the checks were for.

 

[Mick2]

Not simple once the attorney testifies what the checks were for.

NDA reimbursement. An NDA is not an illegal agreement.

You Constitutional scholar you!

 

[konradv]

NDA reimbursement. An NDA is not an illegal agreement.

That was not the testimony. It was to avoid embarrassment.

 

[Mick2]

I never claimed that.

You said the SCOTUS was issuing bad rulings. I asked you who's making this claim. You said "me". Lol

How else should we interpret your stupidity here?

 

[Mick2]

That was not the testimony. It was to avoid embarrassment.

The purpose of the NDA is irrelevant. The agreement is 100% legal.

 

[konradv]

You said the SCOTUS was issuing bad rulings. I asked you who's making this claim. You said "me".

I’m not allowed have an opinion? How fascist of you!

 

[Mick2]

I’m not allowed have an opinion?

Please do. Your opinion that you knew more than SCOTUS was a real whopper. We like to see how stupid you people can look.

 

[Political-Junkie]

The Supreme Court has held time and time again that if an secondary aggravating factor exists that warrants of an upgrade a criminal charge against a defendant (such as misdemeanor to a felony) that the aggravating factor must also be proven to have occurred beyond a reasonable doubt (aka only by unanimous jury or guilty plea). He did something somewhere sometime because I say so isn't a valid aggravating factor to upgrade a criminal charge. A jury (this one or a previous one) must unanimously agre that the aggravating factor happened.

Post a link to a SCOTUS ruling saying what you're saying, because AI says an aggravating factor which upgrades a criminal charge must be decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, which the jury did.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Now the simple issuing of checks to your attorney is illegal?

Oh lord! LOL

When claiming the reimbursement was for his campaign, which we agree he was allowed to find, he was required by law to report the reimbursement on campaign finance reports. He didn't do that. Instead, he reported it on business reports and didn't report what it was for. That means according to Trump's own records, Trump never gave himself a contribution valued at $130,000 to his campaign. Hence his indictment.

 

[Mick2]

That's simply not true. In this case, the jury only had to find Trump guilty of charges he was indicted on. He wasn't indicted on the other crime. The jury only had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he falsified business records to conceal another crime.

I see you deleted out the post where you cited the Supreme Court ruling on facts or aggravating factors that warrant criminal liability. You were stupid to realize it destroyed you so you quickly deleted it!! Lolololol I'll help you again with the same case that you deleted:

The llandmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey. [1]
In that case, the Court held that: "any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
[1]

Ouch!. As SCOTUS says, the other crime (fact)that increases a penalty (such as a upgrading a misdemeanor to a felony) must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury ruling. That is the ONLY way to do it within the confines of Constitution. No other crime hits that threshold in this case. Jury never agreed to what it was.

Can you admit you're just a dead man walking here? This case is dead.