"Sure, Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, but you can't call him a convicted felon."-Scumbagforbesesquire
It's always about splitting legal hairs to convicted lawyer johnforbes. Well, when the guy is a Republican that is. If the guy is a Democrat, then he's convicted in johnny's mind.
But johnforbes doesn't care in the least about being right. No, he only cares about being TECHNICALLY right, especially when he propounds an indefensible position since he knows there were no errors of fact in Trump's well documented New York trial. Legal technicalities aside, it has been proven that Trump did in fact commit those crimes.
johnny's position is that he can't actually make an argument that the judge and jury were wrong in the facts and conclusions from those facts, but merely that there could possibly, just maybe, have been some minor technical error in trial procedure that might conceivably get the conviction thrown out. Meanwhile, as long as Trump can afford lawyers to keep bringing up specious appeals, then the day will never come when johnfoibles will ever have to call Trump a convicted felon.
The only problem with johnny's whole argument is that, unfortunately, Donald Trump is indeed a convicted felon. As johnforbes knows quite well, anyone else who isn't conveniently the president of the United States would have already exhausted their appeals and served their jail time and it would all be settled by now.
"Partisan federal district judges are denying the 2024 election..."-johnfibs
Never happened, scumbag. You made it up. Why must you ALWAYS resort to lies to argue your specious points?
"...and the Article II powers any president earns therefrom..."-Dishonestjohn
No, they are denying Trump unlimited dictatorial powers which are nowhere granted by Article II, dimwit. Why is it Republicans always claim to want liberty and the rule of law, but then fall in behind any authoritarian strongman who tramples on the Constitution and who will just tell them what to do?
Oh yeah, it's because these small-dicked weasels want their forced-reset trigger adapters that make a gun fire 20 rounds per second which they believe they are entitled to under the Second Amendment. But hair-splitting johnforbes will still insist that such a weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second isn't TECHNICALLY a "machine gun" and so everyone has a right to own one to 'defend themselves'. (i.e. to shoot police, event goers, and school children in mass shootings.) What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/17/politics ... re-quicker
