Removed, editorialized headline. We all know his legal status, you don’t need to add it to the headline. :)
Technically not a convicted felon until sentencing is executed (I believe) but it still makes me smile to read.
Conviction occurs when someone is found guilty
He has been convicted but technically he is not a “a convicted felon” yet. It’s just a technicality. He’s a convicted felon to me already lol
You’re arguing over trivial semantics, my guy. What’s the point? He’s a felon, there was a conviction, and he is awaiting sentencing. Hence CONVICTED FELON.
Read the rest of the thread. I’d hardly call it arguing lol dude’s a crook
I don’t know where you’re getting that though. He is technically and really a convicted felon. You can say it and he can’t sue you (yet. No promises if he wins and declares himself god-king)
I heard it from a legal scholar on a podcast the other day who was very clear it’s a small but real technicality, but unfortunately i can’t find anything because it’s pages and pages of headlines announcing he’s the first convicted felon president.
Either way it doesn’t matter. I just thought it was interesting. I only hope he gets a dozen more convictions lol dude’s a criminal and he deserves that and more.
LegalEagle said the same thing in the Nebula version of their video on the subject, but it’s a hair that really isn’t worth splitting.
I just found it interesting 🤷♂️
I agree! And I’ve considered saying it a few times, but I don’t really understand the reasoning behind it and I figured better to not bother than to “um, akchually” this one. 😅
God-King-Emperor*, you fucking snowflake peasant.
You got me, I’m both accustomed to a rough peasant life and fragile to the touch like a snowflake. It feels nice to finally be understood
You know someone is TOTALLY INNOCENT when you have to Argue Semantics and Legal Definitions to decide whether or not there a Felon.
Lmfao please show me the comment where I called that twice impeached piece of shit conman bigot crook innocent.
Misinformation.
No, he’s right, it’s just pointless
He’s not right. You are lying. Why? It’s easy to look up.
By the letter of the definition, trump has been CONVICTED of the crimes discussed.
What is awaiting, is his SENTENCING.
Supposedly it’s the “felon” part that doesn’t apply until sentencing, but you’re right that I don’t know enough about this to argue about it. Not that I should be arguing for Trump anyways, even as devil’s advocate.
You may be mistaken that he is lying. You may also be lying about it. I think the charitable thing would be to not assume you’re lying.
What? This is basic us civics that is easily searchable. Edit it is not some esoteric, legalese hidden thing. To suggest otherwise is to do so as a bad actor
On what are you basing that belief? I saw the post with the link to a podcast, as far as I’m concerned that’s an opinion; I’m looking for legal text stating that a felony conviction doesn’t count until sentencing.
And the Journal will still support Trump.
Nixon as well
Republicans really do have just one playbook.
I disagree. They used to hate Russians, now they love them. Everyone can change!
They’ve always hated the other… it’s just that who the other is has changed (sort of… obviously African Americans have been on the republican shit list since before Reagan).
Did they hate them because Russian or just because Soviet? Cause seems like they love Russia but just hated communism
He did. Earl Brian paid the Iranians $40 million to hold the hostages until after the election. They were released hours after he was sworn in.
The justice department then stole software from Inslaw and gave it to Earl Brian’s company as compensation for the $40 million.
Oh no! That’s just a coincidence.
Unlike most of Trump’s boasts, this one may be true, but not in a way that reflects well on him. Perhaps he’s right that Putin “will do that for me, but not for anyone else.” But that is because Putin rightly considers Trump an ally in whose success he is invested.
What’s worse is that, by openly signaling to Putin that he does not want Gershkovich to be freed before the election, he is destroying whatever chances may exist to secure his release before then. If Gershkovich goes free prior to the election, Trump would look foolish, and Trump understands perfectly well Putin does not want that to happen.
collusion: noun (Law) An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights, by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.
And conservatives, having completely lost both their mental faculties and bowel control eons ago, desperately want this sewage back in office.
I obviously support freedom for Gershkovich, and I think Trump is an asshole, putting it lightly. However I’d like to ask the editor/publisher of this article what in the hell they were thinking layering white text over a black&white halftone photo? Fuck’s sake, accessibility much?
