> 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.