For the gaslighted mental cases on the left who think Matt is a sex trafficker - Justice Department drops sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Wrong. But you appear to be either incredibly gullible, inherently dishonest, or severely stupid.

Once the dishonest partisan hack jurist finally convicts and sentences Trump, he will be able to appeal this clown court conviction and win.

So where is your evidence that in a jury trial the conviction doesn't occur until the sentencing? You presented the process for what happens when someone pleads guilty. We both agree that Trump didn't plead guilty. He was found guilty by the jury. Since he was found guilty by the jury, the conviction occurs when the judge accepts it and enters the jury verdict into the public record.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/judgment/

The decision of the jury doesn t take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision - that is, an order that it be filed in public records.

You might want to read the actual transcript for the answer to that dumb question.

Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.

Three choices of which none were proven? Third world.

Judge Merchan told the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty, the prosecutors are required to prove that on or about Feb. 14, 2017, former President Trump personally made or caused a false entry in business enterprise, specifically an invoice from his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen.

Seriously? That's laughable on its face.

"To find him guilty, jurors must determine that Mr Trump not only had a hand in falsifying records but did so in order to commit or conceal another crime – specifically, that he violated state law against conspiracy to influence an election by “unlawful means.”

Those “unlawful means” include violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, and violations of state and federal tax laws."

Yet, the FEC stated they could find zero evidence there was any election interference. Meanwhile, this jurist, this prosecutor and this jury, by manufacturing a felony out of a misdemeanor that had already exhausted the statute of limitations, attempted to do just that.

I don't know why I am bothering arguing with an uneducated leftist liar who brainlessly bloviates MSNBC talking points.

You seem to want to argue that the court violated the law. Appeals are in process. Until a higher court overturns a conviction, the conviction stands. Finals result is Trump is currently a felon who was convicted of 34 felonies.

 

[Truth Detector]

So where is your evidence that in a jury trial the conviction doesn't occur until the sentencing?

For uneducated dunces on the left explained by an attorney:

At this time he's not convicted because he hasn't been sentenced, you only convict him when you sentence. He has been found guilty, on 34 counts, so, you know... that goes enough, but he is not convicted, he's not a convicted felon yet. But he has definitely been found guilty. But it's easier to say, "yeah, he's a convicted felon".

If someone has been found guilty of a crime by a court but not yet been sentenced, are they really convicted?

You often see people mention that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, but while watching an attorney discuss the aftermath of the recent presidential election he made a short comment that Trump is

law.stackexchange.com

You presented the process for what happens when someone pleads guilty.

No, I did not. It's this reason I don't like to argue with uneducated morons. You just end up in a never ending circle of stupidity.

We both agree that Trump didn't plead guilty. He was found guilty by the jury. Since he was found guilty by the jury, the conviction occurs when the judge accepts it and enters the jury verdict into the public record.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/judgment/

The decision of the jury doesn t take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision - that is, an order that it be filed in public records.

See above halfwit.

You seem to want to argue that the court violated the law. Appeals are in process. Until a higher court overturns a conviction, the conviction stands. Finals result is Trump is currently a felon who was convicted of 34 felonies.

You seem to make strawman arguments no one has made halfwit. Try keeping up and read the above description of what actually occurs in courtrooms.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

For uneducated dunces on the left explained by an attorney:

At this time he's not convicted because he hasn't been sentenced, you only convict him when you sentence. He has been found guilty, on 34 counts, so, you know... that goes enough, but he is not convicted, he's not a convicted felon yet. But he has definitely been found guilty. But it's easier to say, "yeah, he's a convicted felon".

If someone has been found guilty of a crime by a court but not yet been sentenced, are they really convicted?

You often see people mention that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, but while watching an attorney discuss the aftermath of the recent presidential election he made a short comment that Trump is

law.stackexchange.com

No, I did not. It's this reason I don't like to argue with uneducated morons. You just end up in a never ending circle of stupidity.



See above halfwit.


You seem to make strawman arguments no one has made halfwit. Try keeping up and read the above description of what actually occurs in courtrooms.

You really like to show you are stupid. You rely on the internet of someone telling you what they think an attorney said but your own source has this as a response from a law dictionary.

Convicted Felon. ... Convicted. ... 1. The word "conviction" ordinarily signifies the finding of the jury, by verdict, that the prisoner is guilty. When it is said there has been a "conviction," or one is "convict," the meaning usually is, not that sentence has been pronounced, but only that the verdict has been returned. Thus it has been held, where a constitution conferred the pardoning power upon the executive after conviction, that a pardon granted a defendant after verdict, but before sentence, was valid.


Then your source includes a response that cites NY law that says the sentencing happens AFTER the conviction.


S 380.30 Time for pronouncing sentence.

1. In general. Sentence must be pronounced without unreasonable delay.
2. Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:
   (a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or

The court set the date for the sentence at the time of the conviction as required by law. Trump has delayed the sentencing through motions so the date of sentencing has been rescheduled several times.


Clearly you are unable to read and understand English above a third grade level since you didn't read the rest of your link and you didn't read and understand your original quote about what happens when someone pleads guilty vs when they are found guilty by a jury.

 

[Truth Detector]

You really like to show you are stupid. You rely on the internet of someone telling you what they think an attorney said but your own source has this as a response from a law dictionary.

Convicted Felon. ... Convicted. ... 1. The word "conviction" ordinarily signifies the finding of the jury, by verdict, that the prisoner is guilty. When it is said there has been a "conviction," or one is "convict," the meaning usually is, not that sentence has been pronounced, but only that the verdict has been returned. Thus it has been held, where a constitution conferred the pardoning power upon the executive after conviction, that a pardon granted a defendant after verdict, but before sentence, was valid.


Then your source includes a response that cites NY law that says the sentencing happens AFTER the conviction.


S 380.30 Time for pronouncing sentence.

1. In general. Sentence must be pronounced without unreasonable delay.
2. Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:
   (a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or

The court set the date for the sentence at the time of the conviction as required by law. Trump has delayed the sentencing through motions so the date of sentencing has been rescheduled several times.


Clearly you are unable to read and understand English above a third grade level since you didn't read the rest of your link and you didn't read and understand your original quote about what happens when someone pleads guilty vs when they are found guilty by a jury.

More evidence that when talking to unhinged loons on the left with severe TDS, it always ends up in the never-ending circle of stupidity.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

More evidence that when talking to unhinged loons on the left with severe TDS, it always ends up in the never-ending circle of stupidity.

When your own source refutes your claim you resort to childish name calling. Yeah. You are that stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

When your own source refutes your claim you resort to childish name calling. Yeah.

When I say you're an unhinged loon, it's an observation based on facts. It's hardly an insult, except for similar loons with fewer mental issues than you appear to have.

You are that stupid.

Projection from an unhinged loon with severe stupidity issues.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

When I say you're an unhinged loon, it's an observation based on facts. It's hardly an insult, except for similar loons with fewer mental issues than you appear to have.



Projection from an unhinged loon with severe stupidity issues.

Let's see if you can answer some simple questions without going off the deep end?

Does NY law say the sentencing is to be scheduled at a later date after the conviction is entered? yes/no?

NY law 380.30. 2

2. Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:

(a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or

(b) Fix a date for one of the pre-sentence proceedings specified in
article four hundred; or

(c) Pronounce sentence on the date the conviction is entered in
accordance with the provisions of subdivision three.


Does NY Law say that sentencing may be deferred for conviction of certain felonies? yes/no?

NY law 380.30.3

3. Deferral of sentencing. The court may defer sentencing of any
offender convicted of a class C, D, or E felony offense


Does NY Law say that the court can adjourn between conviction and sentencing? yes/no?

NY law 400.10.4

4. Pre-sentence conditions. After conviction and prior to sentencing
the court may adjourn sentencing to a subsequent date and order the
defendant to comply with any of the conditions contained in paragraphs
(a) through (f) and paragraph (l) of subdivision two of section 65.10 of
the penal law.

 

[Truth Detector]

Let's see if you can answer some simple questions without going off the deep end?

Does NY law say the sentencing is to be scheduled at a later date after the conviction is entered? yes/no?

NY law 380.30. 2

2. Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:

(a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or

(b) Fix a date for one of the pre-sentence proceedings specified in
article four hundred; or

(c) Pronounce sentence on the date the conviction is entered in
accordance with the provisions of subdivision three.


Does NY Law say that sentencing may be deferred for conviction of certain felonies? yes/no?

NY law 380.30.3

3. Deferral of sentencing. The court may defer sentencing of any
offender convicted of a class C, D, or E felony offense


Does NY Law say that the court can adjourn between conviction and sentencing? yes/no?

NY law 400.10.4

4. Pre-sentence conditions. After conviction and prior to sentencing
the court may adjourn sentencing to a subsequent date and order the
defendant to comply with any of the conditions contained in paragraphs
(a) through (f) and paragraph (l) of subdivision two of section 65.10 of
the penal law.

 

[Truth Detector]

Let's see if you can answer some simple questions without going off the deep end?

Does NY law say the sentencing is to be scheduled at a later date after the conviction is entered? yes/no?

NY law 380.30. 2

2. Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:

(a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or

(b) Fix a date for one of the pre-sentence proceedings specified in
article four hundred; or

(c) Pronounce sentence on the date the conviction is entered in
accordance with the provisions of subdivision three.


Does NY Law say that sentencing may be deferred for conviction of certain felonies? yes/no?

NY law 380.30.3

3. Deferral of sentencing. The court may defer sentencing of any
offender convicted of a class C, D, or E felony offense


Does NY Law say that the court can adjourn between conviction and sentencing? yes/no?

NY law 400.10.4

4. Pre-sentence conditions. After conviction and prior to sentencing
the court may adjourn sentencing to a subsequent date and order the
defendant to comply with any of the conditions contained in paragraphs
(a) through (f) and paragraph (l) of subdivision two of section 65.10 of
the penal law.

That isn't the topic you mentally unhinged leftist loon.

I'll answer you this way; what laws say someone can be convicted of a crime that the DA cannot prove, and or, where the jurist declares that the jury can pick from a cornucopia of unproven criminality?

I know that due to your mental disease and struggle with severe TDS you wish to cling to this moronic notion that this court was over a serious issue. But it wasn't. It was conducted with numerous reversable errors that will be reversed on appeal, and with such carelessness and ludicrous legal theories that even leftist lawyers felt it was absurd. Unfortunately for Trump, he is not able to appeal the decision until he is sentenced which is now on hold based on political calculations by corrupt Democrat DA and Jurist.

But here you are banging your tiny insignificant little fists on the table desperate to make anyone who will listen to your lunacy that this is serious.

It isn't. 77,285,106 voters agreed.

Something for you to read and become better informed:

Here’s why conservatives, normal people, and anyone else with a brain are not persuaded by the liberals screaming “felonies!”: anyone reasonable looking at the “hush money” trial realizes Trump was unfairly targeted.

First, let’s take the timing. Prosecutors said Trump tried to conceal an affair he allegedly had back in 2006 with hush money payments in 2017. The statute of limitations — the law that requires that charges be filed within a certain time after an act is done — had long run out in this case. For years, no prosecutor wanted to charge this as a crime until Alvin Bragg came along. And then, almost immediately after Trump declared his candidacy for president for this year’s election, Bragg brought these charges. It smacks of politics.

Second, take the charges. As Trump has stated, no one has been charged in New York with this charge, “falsification of records,” as a standalone felony until now. Only at the very end of the case did the prosecution tell the court what their actual case was, that the “falsified” records were allegedly concealing a federal campaign finance violation. But Trump has never been charged by federal authorities with this campaign finance violation. The prosecutors were basically doing legal gymnastics that had never been done in a New York courtroom before.

Finally, look at the evidence that was allowed. Trump had an expert witness that was set to testify that the alleged underlying campaign finance violation wasn’t even a violation at all. But the judge refused to allow this critical testimony. On the other side, prosecutors used Michael Cohen, a convicted liar and self-avowed thief, as their central witness, and that was allowed.

Young will say, “but a jury convicted him!” But that ignores the fact that a jury never should have heard this case in the first place. Once the case did go to trial, the jury should have been allowed to hear critical testimony from Trump’s expert witness.

Former President Donald Trump’s trial was a farce. Here is why

Shuwaski Young recently wrote a piece in this paper criticizing me, along with others, for standing by former-President Donald Trump.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That isn't the topic you mentally unhinged leftist loon.

I'll answer you this way; what laws say someone can be convicted of a crime that the DA cannot prove, and or, where the jurist declares that the jury can pick from a cornucopia of unproven criminality?

I know that due to your mental disease and struggle with severe TDS you wish to cling to this moronic notion that this court was over a serious issue. But it wasn't. It was conducted with numerous reversable errors that will be reversed on appeal, and with such carelessness and ludicrous legal theories that even leftist lawyers felt it was absurd. Unfortunately for Trump, he is not able to appeal the decision until he is sentenced which is now on hold based on political calculations by corrupt Democrat DA and Jurist.

But here you are banging your tiny insignificant little fists on the table desperate to make anyone who will listen to your lunacy that this is serious.

It isn't. 77,285,106 voters agreed.

Something for you to read and become better informed:

Here’s why conservatives, normal people, and anyone else with a brain are not persuaded by the liberals screaming “felonies!”: anyone reasonable looking at the “hush money” trial realizes Trump was unfairly targeted.

First, let’s take the timing. Prosecutors said Trump tried to conceal an affair he allegedly had back in 2006 with hush money payments in 2017. The statute of limitations — the law that requires that charges be filed within a certain time after an act is done — had long run out in this case. For years, no prosecutor wanted to charge this as a crime until Alvin Bragg came along. And then, almost immediately after Trump declared his candidacy for president for this year’s election, Bragg brought these charges. It smacks of politics.

Second, take the charges. As Trump has stated, no one has been charged in New York with this charge, “falsification of records,” as a standalone felony until now. Only at the very end of the case did the prosecution tell the court what their actual case was, that the “falsified” records were allegedly concealing a federal campaign finance violation. But Trump has never been charged by federal authorities with this campaign finance violation. The prosecutors were basically doing legal gymnastics that had never been done in a New York courtroom before.

Finally, look at the evidence that was allowed. Trump had an expert witness that was set to testify that the alleged underlying campaign finance violation wasn’t even a violation at all. But the judge refused to allow this critical testimony. On the other side, prosecutors used Michael Cohen, a convicted liar and self-avowed thief, as their central witness, and that was allowed.

Young will say, “but a jury convicted him!” But that ignores the fact that a jury never should have heard this case in the first place. Once the case did go to trial, the jury should have been allowed to hear critical testimony from Trump’s expert witness.

Former President Donald Trump’s trial was a farce. Here is why

Shuwaski Young recently wrote a piece in this paper criticizing me, along with others, for standing by former-President Donald Trump.

news.yahoo.com

A lot of stuff that has no bearing on whether Trump is a convicted felon or not. Under NY law, Trump is a convicted felon, convicted of 34 felonies. He is convicted but not yet sentenced.

The fact that you and 77 million other people don't accept a fact doesn't make it not a fact. It only means you are so delusional you refuse to see what is in front of your face. Trump is a convicted felon and you voted to put a convicted felon in as President.

Your argument is just further evidence of you not living in reality. What evidence do you have that the jury decided that it was the federal crime that made the crimes felonies. The jury was also given 3 state crimes that would elevate Trump's falsification to a felony. You fail to address that. Would you care to tell us who this "expert witness" was that wasn't allowed to testify. (Hint - He wasn't an expert at all.)

 

[Truth Detector]

A lot of stuff that has no bearing on whether Trump is a convicted felon or not. Under NY law, Trump is a convicted felon, convicted of 34 felonies. He is convicted but not yet sentenced.

The fact that you and 77 million other people don't accept a fact doesn't make it not a fact. It only means you are so delusional you refuse to see what is in front of your face. Trump is a convicted felon and you voted to put a convicted felon in as President.

Your argument is just further evidence of you not living in reality. What evidence do you have that the jury decided that it was the federal crime that made the crimes felonies. The jury was also given 3 state crimes that would elevate Trump's falsification to a felony. You fail to address that. Would you care to tell us who this "expert witness" was that wasn't allowed to testify. (Hint - He wasn't an expert at all.)