Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in ‘hush money’ trial

[putnam6]

I was meaning 10 years total for life of the person in any elected office.

Seven years as dog catcher would make anyone ineligible for the 4 year presidental term.

Yes, I misunderstood, do they still vote for animal control? 

LOL but, I'll vote for you if you can make it happen...

---

I don't know why they couldn't.
It was crystal clear what happened.

As for the current events, it's a boost to his ele in his election campaign

Im gobsmacked Trump is still in the race, 4 cases, millions of dollars spent

It's not sounding crystal clear at all, and TPTB can not miss on this one, one reason it's being delayed and TPTB can't be certain of a conviction.

They can't afford to have it brought to the USSC and be dismissed either.

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea BTW have to be loving the political turmoil and theater. 

Not even going to get into the congressional hush/slush fund.  

$300k in taxpayer funds has been spent settling sexual harassment claims against Congress, report says

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/30...eport-says

 Common Cause Calls for Full Disclosure of Congressional Slush Funds and Shady Deals Used to Hide Sexual Harassment & Other Abuses
https://www.commoncause.org/media/common...er-abuses/

 The main thing its not hitting him in the polls hard enough





https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-h...2080eba0ad

The January 6th  case has been slowed for months by an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a legally untested question about presidential immunity. What the justices decide will determine when, and how, it proceeds — and if there’s any chance of a trial before November.
 
The court heard arguments April 25 on Trump’s claims that a former president is immune from prosecution for official White House acts, a position vigorously contested by federal prosecutors who say there’s no protection in the Constitution or anywhere in the law for commanders in chief who commit crimes.
The justices puzzled during arguments over where the line should be drawn, and though it seemed unlikely from their questions that they’ll adopt Trump’s views of absolute immunity, they did seem potentially poised to narrow the case. A decision is expected by the end of June or early July.

One option will be to send it back to the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, for her to determine which allegations in the indictment constitute official acts and must therefore be stricken from the case — and which do not.
 That kind of analysis could be time-consuming and result in additional delays, though by the same token, a more slender set of allegations could make the case easier for the Smith team to prosecute and eat up less time on the election-year clock.

Either way, a monthslong gap between the high court’s decision and any trial means the case will have been pushed far off course from its trial date. And though a trial could conceivably start this fall, at the very earliest, it seems more likely that there won’t be time to squeeze it in.
 
If Trump loses the election, this case — like the others — will presumably proceed as before. But if he wins, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek the dismissal of this case and the other federal prosecution he faces. He could also attempt to pardon himself if he reclaims the White House.