Retribution - updated

Isn’t the fact that accused criminals often have a negative public impression almost always an issue.

Biden won NYC 3 to 1. But Trump couldn’t get 1 out of 12?

The fact is most people aren’t going to convict a person if the evidence doesn’t support it. It only took 2 days for 12 jurors to unanimously convict him.

So what exactly is your problem with the conviction?

Trump didn’t do the things he was convicted of?

Trump did them, but they aren’t illegal?

Trump did them and they were illegal, but he shouldn’t be charged because of statute of limitations or novel legal theory?

He did them, they sere illegal, but he shouldn’t be charged because he is Trump?

 

The republicans want law and order when it comes to the likes of George Floyd. They also want it to shield Donald Trump and not ensnare him at the same time.

 

As a history undergrad at UF, one of the first lessons we were taught was to judge people and events in the context of their time. The fathering that you do today would similarly not be seen as ideal when judged within the context of earlier generations. Different things were expected of men in their time.

 

Boomer legacy

 

It was debated. A jury decided that it was a crime.

 

Trump supporters are the cutest. Like my son trying to convince me we should have candy for breakfast.

 

That's literally what he was just ruled guilty on. Literally.

 

And OJ was acquitted guys.

As we know, juries, especially in venues where the Defendant is hated/loved, have a history of always getting it right.

The road from indictment to conviction in this particular case was simply absurd. Maybe it's exactly as it looks. Trump was charged by a DA who campaigned on "getting him," in a venue where people hated him, by a judge who doesn't like him, in a manner that could only result in a conviction with the prosecution jumping through all sorts of legal hoops (statute of limitations, misdemeanors to felonies, using federal campaign finance laws for which Trump was never charged as a hook, using a plea deal from Michael Cohen to prove Trump's guilt of those laws despite never being charged, etc.), in a jurisdiction known for being soft on crime.

Everyone who actually followed this, including Democrats know exactly what this is. They just can't afford to say the quiet part out loud. They know Trump was prejudicially targeted, and they know the motivation behind the charges were political; they just don't care because they think he's so terrible he deserves it.

 

The Democratic Party would never have nominated Trump to run for President, but, if they did, it is extremely unlikely that they would be saying that the outcome of this trial was rigged or that the Presidential election was rigged.

 

Must be exhausting using tortured logic to defend a morally bankrupt piece of shit for years on end.

 

Trump did them, they probably weren't illegal, an impartial jury likely would have found in his favor, and a combination of statute of limitations, novel legal theory, and campaigning on "getting Trump" suggesting the motivation for the charges themselves.

When you have to bend over backwards this much to charge someone almost a decade after the fact, and that person happens to be the frontrunner for President, it rightfully raises some eyebrows.

 

Dang. Sure are lotta folks who dislike the felon. Perhaps it's because he's not a good person.

 

You do know that one of the jury members was already on his side, right? They got their news from Fox and Truth Social, and after sitting down and listening to all of the evidence, voted that Trump was guilty.

 

And?

I probably read more New York Times than Fox or Truth Social and I don't think he's guilty.

 

That is quite a bit of spin. Here is what actually happened:

Trump falsified some business records to hide a hush money payment to a porn star that he slept with around the time his last child was born.

He had a fixer actually take care of the details.

The fixer is arrested, charged, and eventually reaches a plea agreement to the illegality of these payments under campaign finance laws.

Trump is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in these crimes.

After his term is finished, New York investigates the case (as there is already a ruling that a crime happened in their jurisdiction).

They find evidence that Trump falsified his business records and did so to cover up the crimes that his fixer was found, by the federal judiciary, to have committed (it should be noted, at this point, that the state had already sued him in civil court for fraud (a case in which they also, eventually, won) and that he was also found to have misused charitable donations in the same state, so this is hardly a stretch).

They take that evidence to a grand jury.

After deliberation, the grand jury indicts for 34 counts.

Trump hires lawyers.

Those lawyers argue his case effectively. I have yet to hear anybody argue that his lawyers failed to accurately or completely argue his case.

The jury hears the evidence from both sides and convicts on all 34 counts that were charged.

You wish this hadn't happened.

You make excuses for why it did that fit with the notion of your own victimization.

 

Excuse after excuse after excuse. Lie after lie after lie. Failure to produce anything that resembles logic. Congratulations. Your guy is LOSER and a felon.

 

He's guilty. He's a felon. It's been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. This makes your claim unreasonable.

 

They will now. It's on the internet.

 

I always assumed you weren't a crazed Trump lackey. My bad.

 

Looks like I hit a nerve.