The "Convicted Felon" Claim is a Sham

No. It is not. UNLESS you are doing it to cover up another crime. Paying hush money is NOT a crime. So, therefore, nothing was falsified to cover anything illegal up. That's the heart of this and why the case falls apart. Trump also did not falsify the documents. The entry for what the hush money was for was made by a legal secretary at her own discretion. Not Trump's. I don't think you watched the video. But of course you didn't. Because there may be some truths in it that you'd have to digest, and REALLY give this some serious thought, and you just can't bear to hear it.

@porwest It was paid in order to keep the story secret in order to influence the 2016 election. . . election interference. Isn't that what Trump loves to call it? No I didn't watch it because I've been busy cooking and cleaning. Sure I'll watch it later or tomorrow. I'm not afraid of hearing "alternative" opinions. In any case labeling Trump as a "convicted felon" isn't a sham. He was tried on 34 felony counts and was unanimously convicted on all 34. It really happened. Whether you believe that the case was warranted//justified/whatever is an entirely different matter. Trump is a convicted felon. That is the truth.

@porwest Home NY Penal Law NY Penal Law § 170.10: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree NY Penal Law § 170.10: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree Under this statute, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree if they, with the intent to defraud, make or cause a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, or alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any such record. The enterprise can be any type of organization, including corporations, partnerships, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. The statute is designed to protect the integrity of business records and prevent fraudulent activities that could harm individuals, organizations, or the public. Examples of conduct that may be covered under this statute include falsifying financial statements, tampering with accounting records, or concealing information to misrepresent the true financial or operational condition of a business. The offense of falsifying business records in the first degree carries potential penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and restitution. The severity of the penalties may depend on the nature and extent of the falsification, as well as the defendant's criminal history. It serves as a deterrent against fraudulent practices in business and emphasizes the importance of maintaining accurate and honest business records in compliance with the law.

@porwest — that is precisely what we have appeals for: if there is a “sham” then it can be appealed. However, until such time that said “sham” is overturned the conviction stands. We can’t just say “Oh, I think OJ did it” and that makes him guilty.

@FourWalls I am not speaking on the issue in terms of the legal attributes. I am speaking on it in terms of what should happen and why an injustice occurred. Those are different things. If I can look at the statutes and put together the pieces and see something wrong with the verdict, I can intelligently comment on the facts of the case and make a determination whether something illegal occurred or did not. Sure, it doesn't change the verdict or the conviction in the interim, but it doesn't mean I am simply going to agree with the verdict either. The COURTS decided OJ was innocent. I decided he was not, and I will forever argue that regardless of what the law said, OJ Simpson killed those people. In the case of Trump, the people who have determined (outside of the courts) that Trump is guilty are not judging based on the facts in the case and the improper application of the statutes. They are judging based on their personal feelings toward Trump. That is my point in all of this. In the case of a person someone likes or does not like, they are using THAT as their basis to call out a judgement. The facts are not important to them in the broader discussion. I think the facts are important to consider because it gets to the bottom of the REASON the case was ever brought in the first place, and the BROADER implications that presents. One of the broader implications is, if you cannot trust the courts to administer the law properly on one end, what gives us trust that an appeal will work within the law as well, or even higher up in the court system. If it breaks down at the bottom, it is subject to break down at the top, and if the entire legal system becomes broken, the law no longer matters. We, as people, REGARDLESS of our political leanings CANNOT ALLOW the system to break just because in THIS case, we like the outcome that occurred from the broken system. Because one day the tables will turn and if the law can be improperly administered in one case, it subjects ALL cases to fall into the same circumstance. Regardless of our personal opinion about Trump, we should be able to intelligently examine what happened and ask questions if we think something was wrong, regardless of who is on the receiving end of the judgement.

No. It's not. Wach the video. There were no crimes. Period. Seriously, watch the video and while you do it, table your bias and open your ears and pay attention. There were NO crimes listed on the indictment. None. There were NO crimes presented to the defense to defend against. There were NO crimes until the very end that the court made up and presented to the jury to decide, giving them a multiple-choice option to pick one of three crimes it COULD be based on their personal judgement. That's not how it works. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can make things up to send them to jail. We went through this with black people once. Those days are over. We don't want to go back to prosecuting people because of who they are. If there WERE real crimes, the sentencing would have gone differently. Trump will likely also win on appeal, and the Judge and prosecutors may face their own criminal charges when all is said and done, and I would also encourage Trump to sue the court and the prosecutors similar to what Alec Baldwin is doing in the "Rust" case brought against him.

@porwest I'll tell you what I will wait until Trump is sitting in the Oval Office to make any further decisions about him one way or the other,

He committed no crimes. This desire makes no sense. Not liking someone is not a reason to convict them of crimes that 1) do not exist and 2) that he did not commit. Be careful what you wish for. You may do something one day that someone doesn't like, and the only reason you are convicted is because of who you are. This is not the purpose of the court system, nor should it ever be advocated to be regardless of what you think of the person brought before the courts. There was a time when, in this country, someone was held to a different standard because of the color of their skin. Do we really want to go backwards and prosecute people wrongly just because we have certain feelings about them? Is that really the world you want to advocate for? You are advocating for a VERY scary world.

He appealed to the Supreme Court and lost. If he can afford to try again...He's broke. Those cases are expensive and his cult only has so much money...he will lose again. Why would anyone think they would overturn the verdict when they agreed he was guilty by not delaying the sentencing? You can forget about any future appeals working for him.

He appealed to the Supreme Court and lost. @xander6464 He did not appeal to the Supreme Court. A request was sent to the Supreme Court to make a decision to delay sentencing. The Supreme Court simply sent the case back down the chain. There will likely be an appeal in this case farther down the chain. MAYBE it makes its way back UP to the Supreme Court? Who knows? But for now the SC simply said, follow the process. If he can afford to try again...He's broke. Simply not true. Why resort to lies? It serves no purpose and sounds like a very childish way to act. Why would anyone think they would overturn the verdict when they agreed he was guilty by not delaying the sentencing? The Supreme Court was NOT deciding on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court was simply being asked to encourage the lower court to delay sentencing. BIG difference. In an actual appeal Trump will likely win because examining the case, no laws were broken and a respectable, honorable court will find that to be the case. ESPECIALLY when the real purpose BEHIND the case being brought in the first place no longer exists as a matter.

That was really the entire purpose of the case, or ANY of the cases brought against Trump. Be able to attach a label to him that they could preface every comment in the news about him with. "President Trump, the first convicted felon to ever hold office, said today that in regard to Iran..." That's ALL this is about, But I think Trump WILL appeal and WILL win the appeal and even think there may be some disbarring of some prosecutors, and the judge may be removed from the bench when all is said and done here. Technically, because the statutes were improperly applied here, Trump has grounds to sue the court for wrongful prosecution and he may just do it, similar to what Alec Bladwin is now doing in his "Rust" case. If they (the prosecutors and the courts) did not follow the law to get the conviction, the entire conviction could be overturned, and intent can be proved to wrongfully prosecute, that makes their actions to prosecute criminal. But no, the jury had no idea. The judge gave them very specific instructions to convict on SOMETHING. ANYTHING. And gave them three options to choose one. "It has to be one of these three," he said, "Pick one." So, what was the ONLY possible outcome? A conviction of SOMETHING. Granted, the jury could have been hung, but I think it is clear what happened here. And I think it is clear the jury was as biased as the court was against Trump politically, so they were GOING to find something regardless.

President Musk is crying all the way to the swamp that he's about to make much bigger.