If you don't understand the trial, maybe you should have followed it.

> Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago?

Trump cared. He cared enough to pay her $130,000 for her silence, because he thought if she said what she had to say, he would not have won. This was the finding of the jury, and all that matters as far as his conviction.

> Enter the legal NDA.

If it were paid with legal funds. But it can't be paid for campaign funds, because they have to be accounted for. That's illegal. And you can't get around paying with campaign funds by having your fixer do it for you and then reimbursing him through disguised "legal payments". That's fraud.

Trump did both, so therefore today he's a criminal and a felon.

> this trial and conviction is a circus.

You didn't even pay attention to it, so how would you know? The trial was not a circus at all. It was all above board, the defendant's rights were maintained. Do you have anything specific to say as to how and why it was a circus?

Question: Do you think a candidate for high office should be able to commit and cover up crimes if they think it will increase their chances of getting elected? If not, if they do cover up and commit crimes, and are then elected, do you think they shouldn't be prosecuted if those crimes later come to light? Or are you immune from any crime you commit to get into office as long as you get elected to that office? Because it really seems like people want that to be the case.

Your comment epitomizes the staunch posturing of the expressive political circus that brought this case in the first place.

> "therefore today he's a criminal and a felon"...

This token is repeated ad nauseam. As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites. Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"..."Trump is dangerous" etc.

Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention". So simple! You're basically saying "if only your cognitive abilities weren't so lacking, you'd see the trial wasn't a circus at all. Nothing to see here!"

USA is a hugely important ally to my country. We want USA to do well, no matter what party is in power. I wish more people would get behind their president while they're in office, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. Same in my country. It's clear that significant cohorts seek to tear people down with endless negativity, even advocating civil unrest if their choice of president doesn't eventuate. Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.

> This token is repeated ad nauseam.

It's been a single day...

> As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites.

Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why people would be happy about this.

> Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"

Not exactly a statement one needs to prepare, it's what he's been saying for 4 years.

> Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention".

I'm not questioning your cognitive abilities, I'm calling you ignorant in as nice a way as I can. In your post you recited a bunch of things you are confused about:

- $130,000 is nothing.

It's not nothing, it's $130,000. In fact it wasn't only $130,000, the total payments to Cohen was $420,000. Either way, you should see the amounts normal people are prosecuted for. The Just Security article linked elsewhere in this thread shows people prosecuted under this law for returning unpurchased items at a store and using store credit. So prosecutors better be lifting their heads for $130k.

- NDA payments are legal

Not if they are unreported and excessive campaign expenditures.

- classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime

If it's done intentionally as a lie to conceal a campaign finance violation, hell yeah that's a crime.

- Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago?

Trump cared, he thought his wife and family would care, but moreover he thought his voters would care, and he voiced that fact to Hope Hicks, which she testified at trial.

All these facts were learned at trial. So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial.

> Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.

So you can't point to a specific circus in the case of this trial as alleged. Instead you gesture vaguely to political tantrums, which is unconvincing. But note the person throwing the biggest tantrum at the moment is in fact Trump and Republicans. Everyone else as far as I can tell is acting like an adult.

> It's been a single day...

You haven't been paying attention if you believe the moniker "convicted felon" started 3 days ago.

> Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why...

Again you're joining unrelated dots to paint a picture of my "misunderstanding & confusion".

> ...people would be happy about this.

Happy about the displacement of justice with weaponising the legal system? There was never any confusion about why some are happy with the guilty verdict.

> It's not nothing

It's relatively nothing. It's white-collar slap-on-wrist stuff. The only difference is your efforts to tie it with crucially pivotal presidential campaign business. The wild claim you know Trump "knew he wouldn't win" unless he covered it up, is a glaring stretch.

Many voters didn't want Hilary, for various reasons. They would have stayed the course, unmoved by scandalous naughty interactions from years ago. Even after Trump's sexist and sorry "locker room talk" caught on mic, women still voted for him. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself, if they weren't shaken by misogynistic locker-room talk, would they be shaken by sordid Stormy stories. Highly unlikely.

Likewise, many voters don't want Biden. For whatever reason - maybe it's less about Biden and more about not wanting Dems, or Harris after she stared into the camera at Americans and said with a straight face "the border is secure". Maybe that's why people will vote for a convicted felon whose dishonesty about the stationary cupboard is the lesser evil.

> So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial.

I would and I did. Just as millions of others did. I'm asking the questions and all you have is "you don't understand, $130,000 violation, convicted felon etc". If you're trying to convince me of anything having "discovered" my vacuous understanding on the subject, you have failed.

> Circus

Even the judge had to step in to stop the mud-slinging descriptions of ass-slapping money-shot testimonies, unrelated to the case. A circus.

> You haven't been paying attention if you believe the moniker "convicted felon" started 3 days ago.

Can you show me an example of anyone besides a random internet comment using it? Like a journalist, media outlet, or a politician?

I know people are apt to use the phrase "twice impeached" because he was impeached twice. And one-term because he wasn't reelected due to his unpopularity. I know they do say "liable for rape" because he was found to have done that in a court of law. But no, I haven't heard "convicted felon" before he actually became a convicted felon, I'll be surprised if you can back that up substantially.

> my "misunderstanding & confusion".

You said it, not me.

> Happy about the displacement of justice with weaponising the legal system?

You are Australian, and here you are repeating American right wing propaganda to shit on a system of justice about which you know nothing except filtered through said right wing propaganda. Just stop? Please?

Can you even explain precisely how the system was weaponized without referencing said right wing sources?

You can't because it wasn't. We'll let the appeals process prove that for you, but the mere fact Trump is now given the right of an appeal should make clear that the system that's applied to everyone else is working for him, and that's not a "weaponization" of anything.

Trump was tried in a fair and speedy manner, he was was informed of all charges against him, his bail was set at a reasonable amount, he received all due process in accordance with the 14th and 5th amendments, he was presumed innocent throughout the trial, he was given a rigorous defense and was adequately represented by counsel, he heard all the evidence against him, he was afforded the right to cross examine all witnesses, he maintained his 5th amendment right to not testify, a jury of his peers applied the facts to the law and convicted him unanimously, and he will be sentenced fairly under the 8th amendment. And again, this whole process is subject to review and that is his right as well.

So where is the problem? Where does the weaponization come in? The prosecutor was independent of any political influence and they weren't even feds. Who is doing this weaponization? Joe Biden? How? And if Joe Biden is weaponizing the legal system, why is it prosecuting his own son? Does Joe Biden hate his own son that much?

Sorry, but this whole "weaponization" idea is literally a Republican political talking point, and you've bought into it from across the world for some reason. Republicans formed a whole committee over it and have had hearings for years now about this idea, hearings which crucially haven't actually produced evidence of weaponization! They keep promising it will come though!

> It's relatively nothing.

This is why I don't think you really paid attention to the trial at all, because the reason the amount breaks the law was explained at trial.

Anyway, I can understand why none of this seems important to you, seeing as it's about a political system that you are not a part of and which doesn't impact your life like it does mine. Maybe I'll try to explain it to you. In America we have a system where you have to spend money to get elected. The more money you spend the better your chances of getting elected. Because of this, everyone who is running for office has to report campaign expenditures, because there are limits on what people can spend.

Donald Trump felt that what Stormy had to say would hurt his campaign. This is not my "wild claim", this is a matter of fact determined by the jury as part of their verdict, so that's a settled matter. Trump felt that what Stormy had to say about their affair would hurt his chances at getting elected. Again, the evidence for this was presented at court and I don't have to repeat it here because you assure me you followed the trial, but if you didn't you can find it in the testimony of Hope Hicks and David Pecker who presented the best evidence of this fact. Anyway, the jury found that evidence credible.

So he committed fraud to hide everything. This was not a mere "white collar crime" -- this was a circumvention of the safeguards of the democratic process. If that's tolerated, then all slimeball shitbag candidates (and there are many) will do the same thing: hide their affairs, their rapes, their assaults all their dirty laundry through the same slimeball sleazebag scheme Trump came up with here.

Maybe that kind of behavior is tolerated in Australian politics, but it's a felony in America.

> I'm asking the questions...

You're asking questions that were answered clearly at trial. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

> Even the judge had to step in to stop the mud-slinging descriptions of ass-slapping money-shot testimonies, unrelated to the case. A circus.

Erm, it's more like if you convict a clown, there's going to be evidence of a circus at trial. That testimony was relevant to the charged conduct, and the defendant invited the testimony when he denied the affair happened. If he didn't want to be embarrassed by contrary testimony, he should have just admitted the conduct. Don't you think it's highly relevant that the jury believe the affair happened if they're going to accept the lengths to which Trump went to conceal it?

That's not the same as the trial being a circus, and you admit that when you say the judge kept things in order.

> NDA payments are legal, but we're told that classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime? Give me a break, it's a porn star! Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Obviously a running president doesn't want a disgruntled porn star blabbing about old raunchy encounters, factual or otherwise. Enter the legal NDA.

Neither having sex with a porn star, nor paying a porn star to be quiet about the sex is illegal. Fraud is illegal, though, and is much worse than jay-walking.

Also why now and not before? Trump is a New Yorker and a famous one at that. It seems like his great crime is that he won against their diva.