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

[Political-Junkie]

NDA reimbursement. An NDA is not an illegal agreement.

You Constitutional scholar you!

True, an NDA (in this case) is not an illegal agreement. That probably explains why no one was charged for an illegal NDA.

 

[Southern Dad]

I’m a lifelong Republican, and I’ve voted for Trump three times. I have no issue stating that Trump is indeed a convicted felon. He was convicted of 34 counts of a paperwork crime. It was a misdemeanor that was bumped up to a Class E felony, the lowest NY has. So what?

 

[Political-Junkie]

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

The NDA was legal. What was illegal, was Cohen making an illegal campaign contribution in excess of $2700. Also illegal was falsifying business records to cover up Cohen's crime.

 

[Mick2]

The NDA was legal. What was illegal, was Cohen making an illegal campaign contribution in excess of $2700.

Cohen wasn't contributing money. He was reimbursed.

 

[Political-Junkie]

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.

It doesn't say, "the other crime..." Those are your words, and they're wrong.

It says "any fact (other than a prior conviction)..."

In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Cunningham v. California (2007), the Court ruled that juries, not judges, must determine the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt before a harsher penalty can be imposed.

That's exactly what happened in Trump's trial where the jury, not the judge, determined the existence of an aggravating factor, beyond a reasonable doubt, to upgrade the charge to a felony.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Cohen wasn't contributing money. He was reimbursed.

He wasn't reimbursed for making a campaign contribution, according to Trump's records.

 

[cnm]

The Trump convictions are bogus because of the people and methods they used to convict him. The people who convicted him were identical to the people who convicted Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the Soviet Union.

Everyone could admit Solzhenitsyn was convicted. I don't see why you think that's such a flex.

 

[DennisPTate]

There seems to be a lot of self-denial about his convictions. Why can't his supporters admit the truth--that he was convicted on all 34 charges by a DC court.
Will this fact also follow the election result deniers path of massive resistance at first and now a comparatively few still hold out that Trump won the 2020 election?

But....
isn't it true that Trump....
for all of his many, many, many, many flaws.....
is somewhere in the range of ONE THOUSAND PERCENT
BETTER THAN BIDEN?

Is President Donald J. Trump ONE THOUSAND PERCENT better than Biden was?​

• No​

  Votes: 15.....31.3%

• Yes​

  Votes: 31.....64.6%

• Maybe, but I will need a few more months to see for certain how all of this works out?!​

  Votes: 2.....4.2%

---

• Total voters 48

Thread 'Is President Trump 1000 percent better than Biden was?'

Dec 29, 2025

So, is President Donald J. Trump TEN TIMES BETTER, [one thousand percent], better than President Biden was, or not?

I personally am up here in Canada thinking that YES President Donald J. Trump, in spite of the fact that "diplomacy" isn't exactly his strong suit, [or should I saw Trump suit], was at minimum a thousand percent better than President Biden was?

I will go into one rather controversial topic to give you an idea of what I mean. I personally DO NOT LIKE TARIFFS! When President Donald J. Trump came out with suggesting Tariffs I really had very little idea of what in the world...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 217
• Forum: Politics

• 
• 
• 

 

[candycorn]

Because selective courts & judge shopping in America have become scarcely more than political tools for Democrats.

He won it. Even people in Guatemala know that.

View attachment 1256737

34x convicted felon

 

[WorldWatcher]

The FEC chairman who was being called by the defense was going to testify to exactly that under oath. Not just a member of the Federal Elections Committee, but it's ******* CHAIRMAN. It's head man. He was going to tell the jury that there was no FEC violation nor broken law from the Daniels NDA. Judge Merchan blocked his testimony for that reason and told the defense that they couldn't ask any questions about federal election law violations to the head of the FEC. The federal body which ENFORCES federal election law. Unreal. Merchan then brazenly allowed Bragg to tell the jury that they could just consider Trump guilty of a federal election law crime in order to meet the requirement of "covering for a crime". That's f*ckingn insanity. This case is nothing more than a dead man walking. The conviction will be expunged in the appellate process. It was egregious lawfare. Probably more so than the Colorado ballot measure. The Colorado ballot measure was fast-tracked to the SCOTUS, though, because it's impact on the election was immediate. This has to wind through because Trump has already been released from any and all penalty. It has no impact.

Shit like this why Trump was re-elected by Americans, dumbass.

The above is false.

That is NOT what the Judge said.

Here is what the Judge said, emphasis added for the TL;DR individuals.

"Michael Cohen – You also heard testimony that the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) conducted an investigation into the payment to Stormy Daniels and of responses submitted by Michael Cohen and his attorney to the investigation. That evidence was permitted to assist you, the jury, in assessing Michael Cohen’s credibility and to help provide context for some of the surrounding events. You may consider that evidence for those purposes only. Likewise, you will recall that you heard testimony that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Election Campaign Act, otherwise known as FECA. I remind you that evidence was permitted to assist you, the jury, in assessing Mr. Cohen’s credibility as a witness and to help provide context for some of the events that followed. You may consider that testimony for those purposes only. Neither the fact of the FEC investigation, Mr. Cohen and his attorney’s responses or the fact that Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty, constitutes evidence of the Defendant’s guilt and you may not consider them in determining whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes."

WW

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Again this is false.

Fromk Judge Merchan's instructions to the jury:

"Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both. "

The jury does not, in this case or any other case have to agree on the motive for an illegal act, only that the defendent committed the acts with intent to commit a crime.

For example a husband murders his wife and the prosecution presents the facts showing that. They present evidence of mens rae (criminal intent) by presenting multiple evidentiary and testimonial evidence as to why the defendent murdered his wife. For example:

• There was a large life insurance policy on the wife
• The wife was having an affair with the pool girl

Some jurors can believe it was for the money, some for the infedelity, others for both. Juries do not have to agree on the motivation, only the commission of the crime.

WW

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

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

WW

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Contributions are the most common source of campaign support. A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. Information on types of contributions including monetary, in-kind contributions, earmarked contributions, and proceeds from sales.

www.fec.gov

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Oh lord! LOL

No, falsificatoin of business records to hide crimes committed by your attorney is illegal.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Cite the case please.

Thank you.

WW

 

[Hafar1014]

There seems to be a lot of self-denial about his convictions. Why can't his supporters admit the truth--that he was convicted on all 34 charges by a DC court.
Will this fact also follow the election result deniers path of massive resistance at first and now a comparatively few still hold out that Trump won the 2020 election?

Conviction in a kangaroo court by a corrupt judge doesnt have any credibility. The trial was manipulated by BIden who was let off for stealing top secret documents and hiding them in his garage. A real crime.
The case against Trump was so weak they had to distort the actual law. Every lawfare case against Trump was dismissed or collapsed
Hillary kept top secret documents on her personal server and destroyed them Where was the indictment

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Just to add, testimony in court was that Trump tried to delay the payment until after the election and stiff Daniels (pun intended). That way he wouldn't have to pay her and the story could come out because the voting was over.

Clear indiction the motivation was campaign related, if it was to keep it quiet outside the campaign then there would have been no need to stiff Daniels.

WW

 

[Hafar1014]

Just to add, testimony in court was that Trump tried to delay the payment until after the election and stiff Daniels (pun intended). That way he wouldn't have to pay her and the story could come out because the voting was over.

Clear indiction the motivation was campaign related, if it was to keep it quiet outside the campaign then there would have been no need to stiff Daniels.

WW

ThIs civil case will be overturned in the SC

 

[JoeB131]

Well the twin of JoeB131 shot off his face.

I'm living in your head rent-free.

 

[Divine Wind]

Because selective courts & judge shopping in America have become scarcely more than political tools for Democrats.

He won it. Even people in Guatemala know that.

View attachment 1256737

Are you denying that the Republicans, specifically Trump himself, go judge shopping? How else did he get sweetheart deals in both NY and FL?

 

[j-mac]

Are you denying that the Republicans, specifically Trump himself, go judge shopping? How else did he get sweetheart deals in both NY and FL?

Oh, the “they do it too” argument…So mature.