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

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No, dingus. They report on Trump. As their masters have told them. Trump, Trump, and Trump. Nothing good, mind you. Only derogatory lies get published. And as the worthless leftist traitor sheep you are - take it as gospel.
That's the fact - jackass.

Not what the judge determined, nut job.

Did you get your Trump phone yet?

 

[Southern Dad]

No. If the case is tossed, it will likely be based on (among other things) the law. The indictment should have been dismissed on the initial inspection of the grand jury minutes by the court.

There won’t be any renewed indictment.

Also, it almost certainly couldn’t result in a different sentence, anyway, because anything more would be disallowed as apparent revenge for forcing a new trial.

Let me post it again because you didn’t get it. If Trump were to win his appeal, then the prosecutor would have the option of seeking a retrial on the current indictment. I didn’t say that they would retry the case, I said that it could be retried. It most likely would not be retried because everyone knows it was a political prosecution and Trump won’t be running again.

 

[Southern Dad]

Try again slingblade.

34X felony convictions speak for themselves.

Winning the election of 2024 spoke for itself. Trump not only won, but carried every single swing state. The American voters told you all wha they thought of that felony conviction.

 

[Southern Dad]

Trump is a 34X convicted felon

True today
True yesterday
True tomorrow

Trump is also the President. He was yesterday, he is today, and will be tomorrow.

 

[j-mac]

Just mindless bots screaming at clouds.

 

[candycorn]

Winning the election of 2024 spoke for itself. Trump not only won, but carried every single swing state. The American voters told you all wha they thought of that felony conviction.

Yep...he didn't crack 50%. More than 1/2 the nation didn't want a 34 time convicted felon as President.

 

[gipper]

Trump is also the President. He was yesterday, he is today, and will be tomorrow.

And that is a terrible situation.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yep...he didn't crack 50%. More than 1/2 the nation didn't want a 34 time convicted felon as President.

Only in America.

A person with 34 felonies couldn't get a job at 7-11, but they CAN be a politician.

 

[BackAgain]

Let me post it again because you didn’t get it. If Trump were to win his appeal, then the prosecutor would have the option of seeking a retrial on the current indictment.

I’ll repeat myself, since you’re wrong.

No. The prosecutor could never again charge Trump, At least not on the ridiculous “legal” claims they already tried, on that “legal” theory (the one behind their absurd indictment charges) that elevated time-barred misdemeanors to felonies.

I didn’t say that they would retry the case, I said that it could be retried.

Yeah and I denied your contention.

It most likely would not be retried because everyone knows it was a political prosecution and Trump won’t be running again.

It can’t be retried. Ever. But, even if it could be, it also never would be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not true.

His 34 convictions were because he committed 34 crimes.

Just like any other criminal.

And then he still crushed your DEI candidate.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Sentencing never took place and that case was dropped... try again....

The case was not dropped. Trump is still a convicted felon and was sentenced with an unconditional discharge.

 

[dblack]

And then he still crushed your DEI candidate.

They don't like it when you point that out.

That's what I don't get. Dems go on and on about how much Trump sucks, and I totally agree. But they couldn't beat him. So how much do they suck?

 

[Political-Junkie]

I don't read a felony conviction in any of it... besides the case was dismissed before sentencing.... conviction overturned.... sorry boys....

The case was not dismissed. Where did you read it was dismissed?

 

[Political-Junkie]

Sorry not true... the judge in the case made a pre sentence dismissal after Trump was sworn in... A pre-sentence dismissal occurs when a judge terminates a criminal case after a guilty plea or verdict....
Can it be brought back after Trump leaves office?... that's debatable... and definitely not a good idea.... so don't count on it...

If the case was dismissed and the charges dropped, what is Trump appealing?

 

[Political-Junkie]

"The other crime" is an element...aka "fact" that must exist under the law for New York Penal Law §175.10 to be upgraded to a felony. It must exist. It cannot just be insinuated or suggested. The law only considers a crime existing for legal purpose through the finding of a unanimous jury conviction of all elements that created legal exposure for the defendant.

For instance, robbery does not become "armed robbery" because the judge told the jury that they could consider that the defendant was armed somehow, someway.....maybe, just maybe some you think he had a gun.....maybe, just maybe some of you think he had a knife.....maybe with a.........a......sling shot even???? Hell....he doesn't really know for sure....but it was something or other. LOL

By adding the charge to being "armed" the defendant is now has exposure to an ehanced conviction.....and thus an ehanced sentence. Therefore, the armed part must be proven unanimously by a jury. Telling the jury they pick from a smorgasboard of simple accusations doesn't come close to reach the unanimity required by law.

Dummy.



Yes, it gives discretion to the judge in sentencing to decide the penalty once a conviction comes down. The caveat there being "up to the maximum sentence" per the law the defendant was convicted of. Say, a defendant was convicted of tax evasion and the law stated the maximum prison sentence was 5 years for that crime. The judge has discretion UP THE MAXIMUM. That means the judge can give 5 years....or any number less than that. The judge, however, CANNOT give a sentence greater than 5 years without the conviction of a greater offense by a jury. You actually just shot your own case down. The jury decided THE CRIME. The judge hands the sentence for THAT crime.



Wrong. That instruction given by Merchan to the jury was unconstitutional

IS THERE AN APPRENDI PROBLEM WITH THE TRUMP CONVICTION? RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ERLINGER V. UNITED STATES SUGGESTS THE ANSWER IS YES. - Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Andrew Salemme examines potential violations of Trump’s jury trial rights under Apprendi v. United States:.

tuckerlaw.com

The Right to a Unanimous Verdict and the Jury Instructions in People v. Trump

Seth Tillman argues that Justice Merchan's jury instructions in Manhattan trial may have denied former President Trump the right to a unanimous verdict.

www.justsecurity.org

Using your analogy of an armed robber, yes, the prosecution has to show evidence in court to convince the jury the robber was armed.

Just like in Trump's case, the prosecution had to convince the jury that Trump conspired to aid his election prospects in an illegal manner. Which he did by paying a porn star to not speak about an alleged affair years earlier. The prosecution was successful.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Cohen paid Daniels.

At Trump's direction.

 

[Mick2]

Just like in Trump's case, the prosecution had to convince the jury that Trump conspired to aid his election prospects in an illegal manner.

"Illegal manner"

That nebulous statement doesn't satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. Read the links I provided you. What election law on the books did Trump break that made it an "illegal manner" that the jury unanimously agreed upon?

 

[Political-Junkie]

"Illegal manner"

That nebulous statement doesn't satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. Read the links I provided you. What election law on the books did Trump break that made it an "illegal manner"?

Sure it does. It's just like your armed robber analogy. In Trump's case, the prosecution only has to convince a jury a crime was committed in order to convict him of a felony. The law that was broken was § 17-152.

 

[Mick2]

Sure it does. It's just like your armed robber analogy. In Trump's case, the prosecution only has to convince a jury a crime was committed in order to convict him of a felony. The law that was broken was § 17-152.

Read the links provided. They are explicit. A jury cannot be instructed to come up with "a crime". How would a defendant defend against the accusations of "a crime" in court? The jury must be instructed and come up unanimously with THE crime that justifies charging enhancement.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Read the links provided. They are explicit. A jury cannot be instructed to come up with "a crime". How would a defendant defend against the accusations of "a crime" in court? The jury must be instructed and come up unanimously with THE crime that justifies charging enhancement.

Cohen’s crime was before B the jury.

The crime Trump was aiding out hiding for the falsification of business records. Cohen’s conviction was a fact.

WW