Aug. 24 Response

Now, let's move on to the question of why you are supporting a convicted felon for POTUS. Trump was convicted of falsfying business records in order to conceal the crime of election fraud. In short, he was accused of lying about the nature of his payments to Stormy Daniels in order to keep voters from finding out about his alleged affair with her. He is alleged to have done this in order to win the election. 

First of all, I will concede that, although it is a felony, this case most certainly contains the least onerous charges of which Trump has been accused in the four indictments against him. The other three are much more serious cases. 

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume that his ridiculous contention that the case against him was brought for political reasons is, in fact, true despite zero evidence of that. 

So, the government of New York decided to prosecute Trump in order to keep him from running for office. What happens next?

The state convenes a Grand Jury culled from the jury pool in the state of New York. These are ordinary citizens called to do their civic duty in an honest fashion. 

The prosecutors show the jury the evidence of the crimes of the accused, and then the jury deliberates to decide whether or not the accused should be indicted. At least 13 (I think) of the 23 jurors must agree that an indictment has been warranted. In Trump's case, it was decided that there was enough evidence to indict. I do not know the split of the jury. Could have been unanimous for all we know. 

Now, a criminal prosecution ensues. Once again, a jury pool of ordinary citizens is brought into a courtroom. This time, they are questioned by attorneys for both the defendant and the state. Each party has the ability to eliminate a certain number of jurors without cause. Both used all their exceptions, I believe. 

Finally, a jury was seated, and trial began under the auspices of a judge. His job is to make sure the law is followed and that all attorneys abide by the rules of law and decorum. As far as we've seen, there is no indication that the judge did anything untoward in this case, despite Trump's claims to the contrary. 

Both sides presented the evidence; the defendant declined to take the stand, as is his right. Both sides rested. 

The jury then deliberated for several days. They then found Trump guilty on not one, not two, not three, but all 34 counts against him.  Trump called the trial "rigged" and "a disgrace," this despite absolutely no evidence to support his charges. 

So my question to you is this: how do you justify supporting a convicted felon for the highest, most respected office in the land, a position that gives him the nuclear codes, and now provides immunity for criminal activities undertaken while holding said office? What is your basis for trusting this individual, a man legally convicted of 34 felonies? How could you trust ANY person convicted of that many felonies to hold ANY public office?