We wish to applaud the judge, and those new york prosecutors, in doing a bang-up job converting an alleged misdameanor, out of the statute of limitations, into 34 felonies, and the vigerious prosecution of the case, thereby materially contributing to re-election of President Donald Trump.
@MasterLee ... i know, ANOTHER astute point ... any Leader of any Country, i think they're deemed as the best of that country {#1 citizen} ... and the Hypocrats chose 'Sleepy' ... speaks volumes about the LibTURDS 💩💩💩 ... but what other reason could it be, a Puppet without the strings
@JimboSaturn I imagine Martha's "prison" was probably not like the place most people end up. Probably something like they have in Norway, where it is like a lower class resort (which is STILL pretty nice)
I mean i have not seen it but I am going to imagine it is probably not some steel and concrete jungle where she had to deal with Big Bertha as a cell mate.
Bottom line: Trump is the first convicted felon to occupy the office of the Presidency.
Well now THAT is an accomplishment.
But yeah, what about all that talk we always heard about not being able to get a good job if we have a felony or maybe even misdemeanor? So much for that.
I mean if a man of honor overcame some obstacles to become president, that would be a proud situation but yeah, trump ending up in office is kind of a disgrace to what America is SUPPOSE to stand for.
@Nimbus 🤔you and ned get unconditional discharge of bouts of verbal diahorrea when you take the mickey out of scousers and liverpool footbasll club lol 😆😆😆
I feel good. Recognizing he's going to be president and no one was murdered, the Judge made the right call. Sure, there is the desire to have seen him in jail, but for a case like this one, even if he lost the election, he still wouldn't have gone to jail since this was his first (recorded) offence. So, justice has been served even though his detractors would like to see him hung.
@anythingoes477 You basically just told me what I already had told you. You claimed the Supreme would not intervene because it's a state trial. But, by voting on the appeal, they did intervene. If the voting had gone in favour of the felon, then sentencing would not have been able to advance.
They are meaningless. It gives the libs a chance to temporarily rejoice in calling Trump a convicted felon until this thing gets overturned on appeal...which it will.
What hasn't dawned on the left is that the lawfare waged against Trump helped him get reelected.
@BizSuitStacy I admit that. They have the mentality of "I have to say whatever is the appointed thing to say on this topic is by my side, regardless of what I actually think and no matter what contradicting evidence may say" and it does give them this borg like, cult like feel. It is more understandable to say "the left". I've travelled to the middle east, eastern Europe and I'm a Brit and I've learned that "the far right" is actually just "normal" in the most of the world. Yet these cultists are trying to make out that everyone not them is some sort of fringe extremist.
Democrats were taught a lesson by voters, for using the "justice system" to try to destroy political rivals. Democrats just are in awe of the behavior of the Soviet Union. “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime” - Lavrenty Beria, head of Josef Stalin's secret police.
It only means he cannot be jailed.............as president. Its a slap on the hand because that is all that can be done. A president has Secret Service protection for life so he cannot ever be put in prison populations. He'd be dead in 15 minutes. 34 felony convictions SHOULD involve jail time.............in this case he cannot be jailed and as president he cannot be punished as we would be...........so this leaves the felony convictions on his record and past that........he skates.
Its the only sentence the judge could impose on the about to be President that he couldnt appeal.. So he cant claim he isnt a completely convicted felon. (Even though he will)😷
Idk what unconditional discharge is, but I’m still kinda pissed because if he hadn’t been able to con his cult and some swing voters into electing him president again he would have faced a fine and prison time. That’s what any normal person convicted of that crime would have faced.
Even if he were to be incarcerated, it is kind of jacked that someone can go through their entire life being a bad guy yet enjoying freedom, and never have to face justice until their life is about over anyways.
I guess it is nothing new that rich people elude justice.
@Musicman Here is a link to the actual transcript. I will draw your attention to page 13, which I have reproduced in full here. @Carla
Reasonable Doubt What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," to tell you how convincing the evidence of guilt must be to permit a verdict of guilty. The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. Therefore, the law does not require the People to prove a defendant guilty beyond all possible doubt.
Onthe other hand, it is not sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. In a criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.
Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identity as the person who committed the crime.
In determining whether the People have proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be guided solely by a full and fair evaluation of the evidence. After carefully evaluating the evidence, each of you must decide whether that evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.
