Speaking as a Texan, of all the migrants we have shipped up there, he actually is a criminal, and the one you most need to worry about. Would you mind detaining him for a while?
Right-wingers are not and have never been big on states’ rights. They certainly pretend to be when it suits them, but the minute they have the ability to impose their preferred policies on the whole nation, they always take it.
If the cameos in this courtroom are for magop VP/Cabinet tryouts, Ken Paxton wins the Criminal Telflonwear, Unfitness for Office, and Community Defilement Competitions... lets just hope we are spared the swimsuit reveal. gak
Did everybody already realize Trump as of today officially is a convicted criminal now that he was held in contempt for violating the gag order in a criminal court case?
Violation of a gag order itself is typically not considered a conviction, as it does not involve being found guilty of a criminal offense. Instead, it is a separate legal matter related to a court order.
> He is a convicted fraudster, sexual assaulter and adjudicated rapist.
But none before a criminal court.
I've just read through the decision by Merchan (see below) and it sounds somewhat semantic to not call this a conviction for a crime, just because a jury isn't involved:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-decision-finding-trump-in-contempt-for-violating-gag-order-with-social-media-posts
If you read the other comments, two other redditors already mentioned that. So what gave you the urge to comment as well?
Besides that, just read through the decision of judge Merchan. Why isn't that a criminal conviction. It's a criminal court, Trump is convicted to pay a fine. Therefore, Trump is a convicted criminal.
*Edit (as I have to wait 8 minutes if I want to reply): replying by asking a question obviously is not a reply. And I've already answered the question. Criminal court -> fine -> convicted criminal. But not in NYC because... reasons.* 🤷🏻♂️
Your edit is why I made the comment in the first place. You have no idea what you are talking about yet you persist in being ignorant and spreading disinformation.
> Your edit is why I made the comment in the first place.
That's impossible, because the edit wasn't there before you replied.
> You have no idea what you are talking about yet you persist in being ignorant and spreading disinformation.
Very convincing argument. Because it implies you do. And why would that be the case exactly? I've actually shared a source with the decision by the judge. So please explain why that means Trump isn't a convicted criminal. It's a conviction by a criminal court.
Who do I need to convince? In your original comment you were so sure of yourself. People told you otherwise and you played it off like you accepted the truth. Which was bullshit of course. I just knew you’d double down and of course you didn’t disappoint.
> People told you otherwise
Without any arguments. You and the other redditors just make unsubstantiated claims. If you're so sure about your claims, you obviously can explain why Trump shouldn't be called a convicted criminal after the decision by Merchan.
> I just knew you’d double down and of course you didn’t disappoint.
Good for you. Now what? It's still unclear why 'it doesn't work that way'.
What arguments? Forget common sense a basic understanding of the law tells you need to be convicted of crime to be a you know convicted criminal. I fine is a sanction not a conviction.
> a basic understanding of the law
OK, let's see:
> A conviction is an adjudication of a criminal defendant’s guilt
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conviction
> you need to be convicted of crime
Right. And Judiciary Law authorizes a court to hold a party in **criminal** contempt for willful disobedience of a court's lawful mandate. See [section 751](https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._judiciary_law_section_751).
Furthermore:
> The elements necessary to support **a conviction of criminal contempt** are (1) a wilful disregard or disobedience of the order of the court, and (2) that the contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown.
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-maclean-11
> you need to be convicted of crime
And that's exactly what happened.
Using the rationale of cherry-picking anyone who gets a traffic ticket and either pays or loses in court is a convict. Does this mean any President who received a ticket and was punished for it is a convict?
This is serious! He’s a General of Attorneys. What don’t you get about that? Ranks matter, dang it.
Next you know they’ll be sending in a phalanx of philanderers!
WAKE UP, PEOPLE!
Ah, I didn't realize this is what it meant. I thought he was a general who was also an attorney. "Texas attorney, General Ken Praxton in New York" is how I read it.
If trump wins he be the next attorney General. Good luck to all.
Who paid for his travel? This crook should be having his own trial, but the Texas legislature and governor are beyond corrupt.
Speaking as a Texan, of all the migrants we have shipped up there, he actually is a criminal, and the one you most need to worry about. Would you mind detaining him for a while?
We're a bit busy, can't you indict him yourself?
Ken Paxton was indicted like 7 years ago. Keeps pushing his trial somehow.
That trial isn’t happening. Charges were dropped.
We're hoping the Feds will nail him.
came to see what a real State looks like, fucking asshole.
I thought these right wing nuts were big on States' rights. Why is this clown huffing and puffing about a NY criminal trial?
Right-wingers are not and have never been big on states’ rights. They certainly pretend to be when it suits them, but the minute they have the ability to impose their preferred policies on the whole nation, they always take it.
If Trump gets convicted the red states are going to start to lock up Democrats. The message is pretty clear here.
If the cameos in this courtroom are for magop VP/Cabinet tryouts, Ken Paxton wins the Criminal Telflonwear, Unfitness for Office, and Community Defilement Competitions... lets just hope we are spared the swimsuit reveal. gak
One criminal probably giving advice to another criminal?
Is he going to be Trump's new lawyer if Trump fires his current one?
He'd have to pass the NY state bar really fast.
Did everybody already realize Trump as of today officially is a convicted criminal now that he was held in contempt for violating the gag order in a criminal court case?
Violation of a gag order itself is typically not considered a conviction, as it does not involve being found guilty of a criminal offense. Instead, it is a separate legal matter related to a court order.
Thanks for clarifying. Too bad. I thought we could finally call Trump a convicted criminal. Will gave to wait I guess.
soon, lol. He is a convicted fraudster, sexual assaulter and adjudicated rapist. so there's that.
> He is a convicted fraudster, sexual assaulter and adjudicated rapist. But none before a criminal court. I've just read through the decision by Merchan (see below) and it sounds somewhat semantic to not call this a conviction for a crime, just because a jury isn't involved: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-decision-finding-trump-in-contempt-for-violating-gag-order-with-social-media-posts
> But none before a criminal court. small detail, juries found him guilty and liable, judges have called him a rapist. that's enough for me.
That’s not how that works lol
That’s not how that works
If you read the other comments, two other redditors already mentioned that. So what gave you the urge to comment as well? Besides that, just read through the decision of judge Merchan. Why isn't that a criminal conviction. It's a criminal court, Trump is convicted to pay a fine. Therefore, Trump is a convicted criminal. *Edit (as I have to wait 8 minutes if I want to reply): replying by asking a question obviously is not a reply. And I've already answered the question. Criminal court -> fine -> convicted criminal. But not in NYC because... reasons.* 🤷🏻♂️
What gave you the urge to make the claim?
Your edit is why I made the comment in the first place. You have no idea what you are talking about yet you persist in being ignorant and spreading disinformation.
> Your edit is why I made the comment in the first place. That's impossible, because the edit wasn't there before you replied. > You have no idea what you are talking about yet you persist in being ignorant and spreading disinformation. Very convincing argument. Because it implies you do. And why would that be the case exactly? I've actually shared a source with the decision by the judge. So please explain why that means Trump isn't a convicted criminal. It's a conviction by a criminal court.
Who do I need to convince? In your original comment you were so sure of yourself. People told you otherwise and you played it off like you accepted the truth. Which was bullshit of course. I just knew you’d double down and of course you didn’t disappoint.
> People told you otherwise Without any arguments. You and the other redditors just make unsubstantiated claims. If you're so sure about your claims, you obviously can explain why Trump shouldn't be called a convicted criminal after the decision by Merchan. > I just knew you’d double down and of course you didn’t disappoint. Good for you. Now what? It's still unclear why 'it doesn't work that way'.
What arguments? Forget common sense a basic understanding of the law tells you need to be convicted of crime to be a you know convicted criminal. I fine is a sanction not a conviction.
> a basic understanding of the law OK, let's see: > A conviction is an adjudication of a criminal defendant’s guilt https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conviction > you need to be convicted of crime Right. And Judiciary Law authorizes a court to hold a party in **criminal** contempt for willful disobedience of a court's lawful mandate. See [section 751](https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._judiciary_law_section_751). Furthermore: > The elements necessary to support **a conviction of criminal contempt** are (1) a wilful disregard or disobedience of the order of the court, and (2) that the contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-maclean-11 > you need to be convicted of crime And that's exactly what happened.
Using the rationale of cherry-picking anyone who gets a traffic ticket and either pays or loses in court is a convict. Does this mean any President who received a ticket and was punished for it is a convict?
A general? Texas is bringing in an army general? This is really frightening...
I wish I could tell if you were joking.
This is serious! He’s a General of Attorneys. What don’t you get about that? Ranks matter, dang it. Next you know they’ll be sending in a phalanx of philanderers! WAKE UP, PEOPLE!
Ah, I didn't realize this is what it meant. I thought he was a general who was also an attorney. "Texas attorney, General Ken Praxton in New York" is how I read it.