edit: I have changed my title to match the new NYTimes headline. Sorry about the all caps, I guess they are really excited about this lol
Also shoutout to @SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone who shared a gift article link in the comments. I hope you don’t mind but I kinda stole it and updated the post
Translation: republicans rigged 2016 election to usurp power, stole 3 Supreme Court seats, passed illegitimate tax cuts for ultra rich, and committed violent insurrection when public legitimately tried to remove them from power.
Every. Single. Republican. Is. Guilty. By. Association.
That’s completely incorrect.
Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records. These were the charges in the NY “hush money” trial only.
Here’s a handy tracker for the other cases from the Associated Press.
To influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
He didn’t decisively win, it’s not inaccurate to deduce from this conviction that the 2016 election was stolen
It’s true that the contents of this trial can be used for the arguments of the prosecution in the Federal and Georgia election trials, but he was not convicted of any crime other than falsifying business records.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-prison-hush-money-trial-verdict-rcna153963
according to The Guardian, for it to be considered a felony charge they had to prove that Trump did it with the intent to commit another crime; The other crime being a New York state law that says it is illegal for “any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”
So the election interference charge form part of the existing charges without being separate charges in and of themselves
The main argument from prosecution to this end was that the encounter happened in 2006 (ish, I might be off) but the hush money wasn’t an issue until the election campaign. Therefore, they argued, it was paid (and covered up with false business records) to influence the election.
The felony upcharge requires he falsify in furtherance of another crime, which was argued to be hiding campaign contributions.
Cool, but irrelevant as nobody was talking about what laws were technically broken, they were pointing out what being guilty of that means in reality