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

[gipper]

Then maybe, just maybe you all should have run a better candidate who actually knew how to campaign instead of a DEI pick full of excuses and blame.

Who?

 

[Southern Dad]

Only in America.

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

What if I told you that some cities and states have laws or ordinances that are called “Ban the Box” that does not allow an employer to ask about convictions? There also the Fair Chance Act which several states like California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and a few other states have which will only allow you to ask about a felony conviction after making a conditional job offer, then only be able to exclude the applicant in certain circumstances?

A single conviction for 34 counts of falsifying a business expense wouldn’t be one of those.

 

[Southern Dad]

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.


Yeah and I denied your contention.

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

Let’s try this again. If Trump were to win, he absolutely could be retried on the same case again. Setting aside the verdict does not mean the case is dead. I know you denied my contention. Trump hasn’t appealed saying that the crimes were misdemeanors barred by the statute of limitations. He appealed saying that he had Presidential Immunity, that there is a Federal preemption by FECA, that the jury instructions on unanimity were in err, that he had a lack of intent to defraud, and judicial bias. Trump is also pursing removal to federal court.

Do I think Trump would be tried again? No, and I already said that. The point is that Trump could be tried again, so Trump is actually risking something with this appeal. The prosecution risks nothing.

 

[Southern Dad]

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.

That is one of the reasons for which Trump is appealing. That will be up to the appellate court to determine.

 

[Southern Dad]

Who?

That’s a good question. I’m not sure that the Democrats really had anyone in line that could have run against and defeated Trump in 2024. The voters were pretty adamant they wanted Trump.

 

[Southern Dad]

Sure he did.

His was the crime Trump was laundering money to hide.

WW

Trump wasn’t charged with money laundering. He was charged with 34 counts of falsifying a business transaction record.

 

[BackAgain]

Let’s try this again. If Trump were to win, he absolutely could be retried on the same case again.

No. He could not. No matter how often you make that silly claim, he still could not. Why not? Because the prosecution doesn’t get a second try at a case involving a legal theory that has been nullified by the higher court.

It looks as though you confuse a retrial after a mistrial (which is allowed) with a hypothetical retrial after a court has ruled — as a matter of law — that the prosecution’s legal theory for a prosecution has been determined to be legally invalid.

Setting aside the verdict does not mean the case is dead.

In some cases, that’s true. But not when, as. I predict is going to happen here, the appellate court denies the validity of the supposed legal theory previously claimed to justify a prosecution.

I know you denied my contention. Trump hasn’t appealed saying that the crimes were misdemeanors barred by the statute of limitations.

Yes. In fact, he has appealed on a variety of legal grounds and that’s part of it. You’re simply wrong.

He appealed saying that he had Presidential Immunity,

Wrong. That is separate legal argument he addressed to a federal court. I think his attorneys also mention it as part of their numerous bases to reverse this conviction in the NYS Appeal.

that there is a Federal preemption by FECA, that the jury instructions on unanimity were in err, that he had a lack of intent to defraud, and judicial bias. Trump is also pursing removal to federal court.

I read his lawyers’ appellate brief. Indeed, I even offered a link to it. You are getting all confused.

Do I think Trump would be tried again? No, and I already said that.

Good. Not the point. But still, good.

The point is that Trump could be tried again,

No. That’s not the point. It is solely your contention and it is wrong.

so Trump is actually risking something with this appeal.

No. He is not. And he’s not because you are flatly wrong.

The prosecution risks nothing.

The prosecutions isn’t risking anything. They can’t appeal.

 

[candycorn]

Are you ignorant of how our elections work in this country? Let me enlighten you. Trump did indeed crack 50%, so you are wrong. Trump won 312 electoral votes to 226 electoral votes for Harris. That was an even larger result than Biden had in 2020 or what he got in 2016. Now, I know you are talking about the national popular vote. We don’t have a national popular vote election so no one runs a popular vote campaign. The point is Trump won. He’s the President. That conviction didn’t stop him. #fail

He didn’t receive over 50% of the votes cast.

Therefore more people preferrred someone else to your blob.

That this fact sends you into these tizzies is just hilarious.

 

[candycorn]

No. He could not. No matter how often you make that silly claim, he still could not. Why not? Because the prosecution doesn’t get a second try at a case involving a legal theory that has been nullified by the higher court.

It looks as though you confuse a retrial after a mistrial (which is allowed) with a hypothetical retrial after a court has ruled — as a matter of law — that the prosecution’s legal theory for a prosecution has been determined to be legally invalid.

In some cases, that’s true. But not when, as. I predict is going to happen here, the appellate court denies the validity of the supposed legal theory previously claimed to justify a prosecution.

Yes. In fact, he has appealed on a variety of legal grounds and that’s part of it. You’re simply wrong.

Wrong. That is separate legal argument he addressed to a federal court. I think his attorneys also mention it as part of their numerous bases to reverse this conviction in the NYS Appeal.

I read his lawyers’ appellate brief. Indeed, I even offered a link to it. You are getting all confused.

Good. Not the point. But still, good.

No. That’s not the point. It is solely your contention and it is wrong.

No. He is not. And he’s not because you are flatly wrong.

The prosecutions isn’t risking anything. They can’t appeal.

Love me some mental midget wrestling.

Get-em Southern Dad

 

[Rambunctious]

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

Nothing at the moment.... unless its the amount of money the woman who accused him of groping her in a dressing room got from him...

 

[Rambunctious]

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

The Judge in the case... a super hater of Trump dismissed the case after Trump won.... If you people want to go after him after his term you had better think twice... it would surely get Vance or Rubio elected...

 

[Rambunctious]

Love me some mental midget wrestling.

Get-em Southern Dad

You clowns can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.... you are all mental midgets....

 

[Southern Dad]

No. He could not. No matter how often you make that silly claim, he still could not. Why not? Because the prosecution doesn’t get a second try at a case involving a legal theory that has been nullified by the higher court.

It looks as though you confuse a retrial after a mistrial (which is allowed) with a hypothetical retrial after a court has ruled — as a matter of law — that the prosecution’s legal theory for a prosecution has been determined to be legally invalid.

In some cases, that’s true. But not when, as. I predict is going to happen here, the appellate court denies the validity of the supposed legal theory previously claimed to justify a prosecution.

Yes. In fact, he has appealed on a variety of legal grounds and that’s part of it. You’re simply wrong.

Wrong. That is separate legal argument he addressed to a federal court. I think his attorneys also mention it as part of their numerous bases to reverse this conviction in the NYS Appeal.

I read his lawyers’ appellate brief. Indeed, I even offered a link to it. You are getting all confused.

Good. Not the point. But still, good.

No. That’s not the point. It is solely your contention and it is wrong.

No. He is not. And he’s not because you are flatly wrong.

The prosecutions isn’t risking anything. They can’t appeal.

Your premise is based upon the appellate court setting the verdict aside for specific reasons such as legal theory being nullified. The Trump attorneys have appealed on several reasons. If it was set aside for a reason such as a bad jury instruction, or judicial bias (both claims in the appeal) then he could be retried. As I said, it will not happen but the point is he could legally be retried.

 

[Southern Dad]

He didn’t receive over 50% of the votes cast.

Therefore more people preferrred someone else to your blob.

That this fact sends you into these tizzies is just hilarious.

Obviously, you also do not understand how elections in this country work. We do not have a national popular election therefore candidates do not run that kind of campaign. You may not get that. Trump won, and he’s the President. That hurts your feelings.

 

[Southern Dad]

You clowns can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.... you are all mental midgets....

Really? Scroll back a few pages. I wiped the floor with your ignorant argument that Trump was not a convicted felon. When you try and argue something that is dead wrong, you wind up looking foolish and that clearly happened to you. Because as we all know, rightly or wrongly, Trump is indeed a convicted felon at this time.

 

[Rambunctious]

Really? Scroll back a few pages. I wiped the floor with your ignorant argument that Trump was not a convicted felon. When you try and argue something that is dead wrong, you wind up looking foolish and that clearly happened to you. Because as we all know, rightly or wrongly, Trump is indeed a convicted felon at this time.

Show me time served by Trump... because if he was convicted of a felony he would have done time...
Its simple... do that and you will be right... until then you are just a dumbass....

 

[Rambunctious]

Obviously, you also do not understand how elections in this country work. We do not have a national popular election therefore candidates do not run that kind of campaign. You may not get that. Trump won, and he’s the President. That hurts your feelings.

You are wigging out now dude... both sides think you are a fool.... just stop....

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What if I told you that some cities and states have laws or ordinances that are called “Ban the Box” that does not allow an employer to ask about convictions?

They can later.

There also the Fair Chance Act which several states like California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and a few other states have which will only allow you to ask about a felony conviction after making a conditional job offer, then only be able to exclude the applicant in certain circumstances?

See above, they still find out.

A single conviction for 34 counts of falsifying a business expense wouldn’t be one of those.

That's 34 convictions on 34 counts.

They don't combine counts.

 

[Mick2]

That is one of the reasons for which Trump is appealing. That will be up to the appellate court to determine.

You know, as well as everyone else, that the conviction will get tossed on appeal whether that's in NY or SCOTUS. It's as sure as the Colorado ballot stunt Dems tried to pull. The number of Constitutional violations by Bragg and Merchan was appalling.

 

[Mick2]

He didn’t receive over 50% of the votes cast.

Therefore more people preferrred someone else to your blob.

That this fact sends you into these tizzies is just hilarious.

I don't know the exact percentage of the vote he got. I just know that he was elected to be our President and gobsmacked the hell out of DEI KamelToe Harris. That fact makes your blood boil!