Double gasp

Got nuthin huh?

He was convicted a fraud to cover up an unknown unspecified crime. There's a reason that type of prosecution was forbidden by the constitution.

Actually, our government is relatively transparent (With a 2023 rating of 69%. And no, this wasn't some sort of "cover-up" as you are suggesting. The main question: Do we REALLY want a president who has been convicted 34 times of BUISNESS fraud, to take over the United States? Look, Trump is not a pleasant figure, he is dishonest, and doesn't watch his mouth. Besides being a straight off jerk, he is a powerful political man. Perhaps he should've chosen smarter individuals to fill his cabinet.

It didn't suggest a cover up, I directly stated an unconstitutional persecution.

Why do you suggest it as "unconstitutional"? I might ask. And I apologize for my misunderstanding! I had mis interpreted your comment.

The "an unknown unspecified crime" he was convicted of covering up. The judge even ruled that the jury didn't need to agree on what crime he was covering up.

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Did he not have this? He was given a lawyer, far judgement as well, was he not?

Nope, " to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation". An unnamed crime cannot be properly defended against because it can twist and change like the wind. And as the jurors didn't even have to agree on which unnamed crime he committed, he wasn't properly convicted.

Hm, either way, he was still proven guilty, correct? So what you are suggesting is that the jury was biased towards Trump?

He wasn't properly proved guilty because the crime he was accused of was covering up a second crime. The second crime was never proved to have happened, therefor a coverup was never proved.

Without that second crime being covered up, the campaign finance fraud he was accused of would be a misdemeanor past the statue of limitations. Even then the FBI looked into it and said it wasn't criminal, which is built-in reasonable doubt.

And the jury was from a heavy democrat area, so they where likely biased on top of this. Lawyers will tell you, the outcome of a lawsuit depends sometimes depends more on where it is filed that the facts of the case when it falls under the same laws. Selectively filing in a favorable area is known as forum shopping.

Hm, I see your point! Once again, thanks for proving this, ahaha! (No one will ever have a proper conversation on this, so yeah!) I think you're right!

Hm?
If by nothing, you mean the balloon head in the meme, then yes, "nuthin"