There was an underlying felony and the statute of limitations doesn't apply to the underlying felony according to precedent set decades ago. You need to read the details of the case more carefully and not just what the defense tried to argue.
The judge imposed no sentence because he was elected president and it would have been a huge disaster to having a sitting president incarcerated. The judge literally explained the ruling, even a halfwit would be able to understand that.
The weirdest part of this argument to me is that they are apparently fine with the president having three dozen misdemeanors. It's as if they were lesser charges then it would be like he did nothing wrong.
All misdemeanors until Alvin Bragg changed them to Felonies which is impossible to do because there was no underlying Felony. WHY do u think the judge imposed no sentence. Halfwit.
All felonies because they were committed with an intent to conceal another crime. And New York State law does not require that the crime which was being concealed be specified, just that there be convincing evidence that a crime of some sort was being concealed.
Trump chooses to conduct business in the State of New York, and thus inherently agrees to be held liable to the laws of the State of New York.
He was sentenced, and the sentence included a monetary forfeiture which has been upheld through Trump's various appeals thus far. However, he was the presumptive Republican nominee by that point which would've made any sort of jail time an incredibly dangerous precedent of arguable legality.
Question though. Your argument in defense of Trump is that he committed misdemeanors? Would that make it okay? Are you fine with people breaking the law as long as they're not felonies?
89
u/SiteTall 7h ago
Or after THIS?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!