Trump NY indictment thread

[DaaQ]

Not a convicted felon according to New York until sentenced.
So on Jan 20th a convicted felon will be taking oath of office.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not a convicted felon according to New York until sentenced.

Why do we even play these semantic games?

Found guilty = convicted, colloquially.

 

[DaaQ]

Why do we even play these semantic games?

Found guilty = convicted, colloquially.

Not in New York. At least according to lawyers from the office that prosecuted.
State laws vary, not semantics.

 

[QueBert]

Not a convicted felon according to New York until sentenced.
So on Jan 20th a convicted felon will be taking oath of office.

I knew the MAGAs would vote for him no matter what so no surprise there. But a lot of non MAGAs voted for him so plenty of people who aren't in his cult are still seemingly okay with what you said. That blows my mind. It also blows my mind that there are laws in place restricting felons from voting, but nothing is stopping them from running for president.

So they can't vote, they can't own a gun, they can't travel to many countries. And there's a long list of other things they can't do. But running for president's perfectly fine. And the irony of the NY judge saying he's gonna let him go with a slap on the wrist with the understanding he can't get into trouble again. I believe it's impossible for him to actually get in trouble.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not in New York. At least according to lawyers from the office that prosecuted.
State laws vary, not semantics.

It is nitty gritty of state law that the every day person is going to give 0 shits about.

These public discussions are performances for the public, much like a WWE match. There is no reason to give Republicans and Trump any ground over nuances of state law. Make them defend Trump and tell us how his guilty verdict isn't really a conviction.

 

[nOOky]

He definitely got himself off.

haha glad you caught that.

 

[DaaQ]

It is nitty gritty of state law that the every day person is going to give 0 shits about.

These public discussions are performances for the public, much like a WWE match. There is no reason to give Republicans and Trump any ground over nuances of state law. Make them defend Trump and tell us how his guilty verdict isn't really a conviction.

You just said it. Bolded.
A guilty verdict is just a verdict. You must be sentenced to complete the process.

Now I am not sure that once sentencing happens and he is a "convicted" felon, if his outstanding fines would play a role in FL voting. At least that is what the FL law had said, that a convicted felon could not vote until all fines a restitution are paid in full. Now we know Desanctimonious (how is that even spelled?) would find a way to make sure the rich white guy could. But that is different topic.

Now his team could try one last "hail mary" with trying to get a stay of the sentencing. But will they?

Now I don't really disagree with you, well except the WWE part (male soap opera imo). But yea, all of his supporters are claiming no conviction equals not guilty. So yes he must be sentenced to shut them up. Even if the judge is going to convict with the no time served, sorry forget what they are calling it now.

They have been saying he has not been convicted so therefore not guilty, well with sentencing complete he will be absolutely guilty according to Law.

Doesn't help us Joe Schmoes who would have been serving time while waiting on sentencing. That is the rich privilege none of us are entitled to under the 2nd tier system.

 

[Pens1566]

We have entirely too much fucking around, and nowhere near enough finding out. It's a running theme through everything that is wrong with this country.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Not a convicted felon according to New York until sentenced.
So on Jan 20th a convicted felon will be taking oath of office.

New York law says otherwise. (look it up). People really need to stop with this bullshit argument. As for the prosecuters office, you really need to learn what policial bullshit looks like, as that is the only reason they are saying such nonsense.

 

[NWRMidnight]

You just said it. Bolded.
A guilty verdict is just a verdict. You must be sentenced to complete the process.

Now I am not sure that once sentencing happens and he is a "convicted" felon, if his outstanding fines would play a role in FL voting. At least that is what the FL law had said, that a convicted felon could not vote until all fines a restitution are paid in full. Now we know Desanctimonious (how is that even spelled?) would find a way to make sure the rich white guy could. But that is different topic.

Now his team could try one last "hail mary" with trying to get a stay of the sentencing. But will they?

Now I don't really disagree with you, well except the WWE part (male soap opera imo). But yea, all of his supporters are claiming no conviction equals not guilty. So yes he must be sentenced to shut them up. Even if the judge is going to convict with the no time served, sorry forget what they are calling it now.

They have been saying he has not been convicted so therefore not guilty, well with sentencing complete he will be absolutely guilty according to Law.

Doesn't help us Joe Schmoes who would have been serving time while waiting on sentencing. That is the rich privilege none of us are entitled to under the 2nd tier system

A conviction is required in New York to be sentenced. Please stop with this bullshit.

 

[DaaQ]

A conviction is required in New York to be sentenced. Please stop with this bullshit.

You look it up, New York is a quirk in the system, according to the #2 DA that worked in that office. You are not a covicted felon UNTIL you are sentenced. How hard is this to understand. The fact he is being sentenced 10 days before office makes it clear that he will be a "convicted' felon, not just a person found guilty.

I think y'all are failing to recognize the fact that the system must be completed to conclusion.

 

[trenchfoot]

You look it up, New York is a quirk in the system, according to the #2 DA that worked in that office. You are not a covicted felon UNTIL you are sentenced. How hard is this to understand. The fact he is being sentenced 10 days before office makes it clear that he will be a "convicted' felon, not just a person found guilty.

I think y'all are failing to recognize the fact that the system must be completed to conclusion.

Tying off this loose end as it were is of course what needs to be done. And personally, it does satisfy me in the sense that true justice is being delivered to a man that absolutely deserves it.

Yet in a loosely related way, it will not matter at all to the folks who voted him into office, just as it didn't matter to them that he is a vile despicable narcissist scofflaw that incited an insurrection with enough wealth to allow him to delay justice being served on him until he can outlast it, avoid it and corrupt the system of justice to his liking.

It seems his supporters are in so many ways Stockholm victims, virtually cheering Trump on every time he sidesteps the long arm of the law, to the point where they feel he deserves to be our POTUS given how adept he is at avoiding his paying for the crimes he's committed against The People.

 

[NWRMidnight]

You look it up, New York is a quirk in the system, according to the #2 DA that worked in that office. You are not a covicted felon UNTIL you are sentenced. How hard is this to understand. The fact he is being sentenced 10 days before office makes it clear that he will be a "convicted' felon, not just a person found guilty.

I think y'all are failing to recognize the fact that the system must be completed to conclusion.

I did look it up, a person is convicted when found guilty either by judge, jury, or pleading guilty of a felony charge. A conviction does not rely on sentencing for the person to be officially convicted, as they are officially convicted before sentencing when they are found guilty. The DA is doing political lip service, as new york law says different, that of course is if he actually said such a thing (see my edit). You really need to stop throwing around right wing talking points, because they are not factual.

edit: How come there is nothing out there showing the DA making such a statement that there is no conviction until sentenced if that indeed is factual? You would think there would be something if true? right?

 

[DaaQ]

I did look it up, a person is convicted when found guilty either by judge, jury, or pleading guilty of a felony charge. A conviction does not rely on sentencing for the person to be officially convicted, as they are officially convicted before sentencing when they are found guilty. The DA is doing political lip service, as new york law says different, that of course is if he actually said such a thing (see my edit). You really need to stop throwing around right wing talking points, because they are not factual.

edit: How come there is nothing out there showing the DA making such a statement that there is no conviction until sentenced if that indeed is factual? You would think there would be something if true? right?

Would you accept a 20 year assistant DA's word for it? Basically the #2 spot that worked and practiced from that office? She is now a defense attorney but 20 years as a prosecutor seems to be a decent enough resume correct?

Here is how it's explained. Time stamped at 5:39

EDIT: reason you can't find anything showing the DA making statements, is because without sentencing, the trial is not completed. Without regards to appeals which happen afterwards.

 

[manly]

It is nitty gritty of state law that the every day person is going to give 0 shits about.

These public discussions are performances for the public, much like a WWE match. There is no reason to give Republicans and Trump any ground over nuances of state law. Make them defend Trump and tell us how his guilty verdict isn't really a conviction.

As the cliche goes, it's a distinction without a difference.
It's a technicality that hardly anyone cares about. Yes, DJT has already been convicted by a jury. And yes, it isn't entirely official until Judge Merchan enters the "judgment of guilt" upon sentencing. Until Friday, one could say he's not 100% a convicted felon yet.

I realize it seems contradictory to say a jury has convicted him, but he's not officially a convicted felon yet but indeed both statements are currently true. I agree normal people aren't getting caught up in these dumb little semantic/pedantic games.

What's more salient is that there will be no actual penalty (thus MAGA can continue to argue witch hunt); and if this ever gets to SCROTUS, they'll probably overturn the verdict on the grounds of presidential immunity. Yes the latter is bullshit but that's what the John Roberts court has devolved into.

At this point, I'd settle for DJT ultimately forking over large sums of money for the two civil judgments, but that remains to be seen. Quite frankly, nothing would be more harmful to Trump's ego than having his net worth shredded, while being forced to sell some of his valuable properties.

 

[sandorski]

Would you accept a 20 year assistant DA's word for it? Basically the #2 spot that worked and practiced from that office? She is now a defense attorney but 20 years as a prosecutor seems to be a decent enough resume correct?

Here is how it's explained. Time stamped at 5:39

EDIT: reason you can't find anything showing the DA making statements, is because without sentencing, the trial is not completed. Without regards to appeals which happen afterwards.

Dude's a criminal, bro.

 

[Jaskalas]

Dude's a criminal, bro.

Which time?

• Hosting the Russian government at Trump Tower to discuss the 2016 election, after specifically asking for an assist on live TV?
• Blackmailing Ukraine's President on a phone call, to solicit yet ANOTHER country being involved in the 2020 election?

Etc, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

As the cliche goes, it's a distinction without a difference.
It's a technicality that hardly anyone cares about. Yes, DJT has already been convicted by a jury. And yes, it isn't entirely official until Judge Merchan enters the "judgment of guilt" upon sentencing. Until Friday, one could say he's not 100% a convicted felon yet.

I realize it seems contradictory to say a jury has convicted him, but he's not officially a convicted felon yet but indeed both statements are currently true. I agree normal people aren't getting caught up in these dumb little semantic/pedantic games.

What's more salient is that there will be no actual penalty (thus MAGA can continue to argue witch hunt); and if this ever gets to SCROTUS, they'll probably overturn the verdict on the grounds of presidential immunity. Yes the latter is bullshit but that's what the John Roberts court has devolved into.

At this point, I'd settle for DJT ultimately forking over large sums of money for the two civil judgments, but that remains to be seen. Quite frankly, nothing would be more harmful to Trump's ego than having his net worth shredded, while being forced to sell some of his valuable properties.

Exactly. The distinction may be meaningful in a legal sense but in a colloquial sense it is meaningless.

 

[DaaQ]

Dude's a criminal, bro.

Never said he isn't.
I would argue that he effectively stole the 2016 election using the means he was fond guilty for, and therefore could not grasp why 2020 failed his attempted repeat. But I'll digress there.

I will repeat though, for MAGA world, if T was only found guilty, and was not sentenced which according to the New York law, they would be crowing about how he is not a convicted felon. Since they already don't give a hit about the civil case. It's always "He's not convicted criminally" This, even if the sentence is a conditional or unconditional discharge, I am sure MAGAs will turn it into "well he didn't serve time"

But the fact is, on Jan 20th, a convicted felon with a trial that has been completed in full. Will be sworn in as POTUS. If the sentencing did not take place, then the semantics would be all over the place. I feel this is the final turn of the screw.

Now personally I would like to see ALL elected officials be subjected to random drug testing just like all of us normal working people are in private industries.
if we people actually ran our government like it was intended to be run, this might actually come to pass. I digress again.

As for the SCOTUS, Chief Justice issued a report in what appears to be for Donald.

I'll link at the timestamp, it starts covering at page 6.

BTW, sorry sandorski, I only quoted your post which then others came in and I didn't want to retype or multi quote backwards. No offense.

The bolded part I have thought should have been implemented decades ago. If we have to be forced to do it, so should they.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Would you accept a 20 year assistant DA's word for it? Basically the #2 spot that worked and practiced from that office? She is now a defense attorney but 20 years as a prosecutor seems to be a decent enough resume correct?

Here is how it's explained. Time stamped at 5:39

EDIT: reason you can't find anything showing the DA making statements, is because without sentencing, the trial is not completed. Without regards to appeals which happen afterwards.

Why would I except an assistant DA's political pandering when it goes against what New York laws actually says, and that is if the assitant DA actually said such a thing? You do realize that prosecuters, DA's, can mis interpret laws as well, right? However, "Karen" in this video is tripping all over herself trying to manipulate the law, which is why she said he was convited by a jury, then realizing what she did, and tries "fix" her slip, and redefine "conviction" to mean he isn't convicted until after sentencing and it's finalized. She didn't use the term found guilty by the jury, she said convited by the jury because she knows that the New York Laws says he is convicted when found guilty by a judge, jury or plee. she let the truth out before she even started.. and it seems you missed it because you want to believe, and argue that he's not convited until sentencing, which is not what New York law says.

The reason EVERY news outlets says he was convicted, has been saying he is convicted, since the jury found him guilty, long before he is sentenced, is because that is what New York Law says. Which is , CONVITCED by a jury, just as "Karen" in this video confirmed and then realized she fucked up and had to try back track and attemp to "redefine" when he is conidered convicted, opposite of what New York Law states. That's the reason we don't see anything in the news about the DA because it's not factual. If it was, it would have been in the news long ago.

 

[manly]

Don't care to watch the video but @DaaQ never said anything about DJT not being convicted by a jury, so diatribe completely missed the point.

DaaQ claims that DJT isn't a "convicted felon" until Judge Merchan makes it official this week. As most of us agree, nobody really cares about that technicality.

 

[BoomerD]

Don't care to watch the video but @DaaQ never said anything about DJT not being convicted by a jury, so diatribe completely missed the point.

DaaQ claims that DJT isn't a "convicted felon" until Judge Merchan makes it official this week. As most of us agree, nobody really cares about that technicality.

Unfortunately, the law cares…

 

[JD50]

Why are people quibbling over this? I've never once heard someone care about the time between when someone was convicted of a felony and when they were sentenced, arguing tHeY arEn'T teChnIcalLy a FelOn yEt. This is so unbelievably stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

Why are people quibbling over this? I've never once heard someone care about the time between when someone was convicted of a felony and when they were sentenced, arguing tHeY arEn'T teChnIcalLy a FelOn yEt. This is so unbelievably stupid.

Because democrats like to legitimize Republican talking points instead of recognizing them for being just that, talking points. It’s a distinction that only matters to partisans.

 

[IronWing]

Trump must care about the technicality as he is calling the sentencing unlawful. The judge really should throw him in jail for a night or two just for being a whiny ass bitch.