Trump says he will be arrested on Tuesday and urges his supporters to attempt another coup

[Greatoneshere]

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These people are dumb nerds trust me

 

Indeed - I went to a small "elite" liberal arts undergrad attached to an incredible undergraduate engineering school in all related engineering fields. I did the liberal education side of things but I knew a lot of engineers at the engineering school and this is indeed the case.  

 

No group is monolithic but each profession definitely breeds a type.

[LazyPiranha]

I haven’t read up on the case law obviously, and I also don’t have a calendar of Trump’s whereabouts from 2017 until now, but I feel like there’s a fair argument to be made in either direction depending on what the schedule looks like.  “Continuous” is a loaded legal term, but like most residency requirements it doesn’t operate as strictly as you left for one day and the clock stops for that twenty four hours, and it’s also not so loose that merely claiming residency and setting one foot in the state for one day each year counts either.  Where Trump’s time out of state falls between these two extremes, reasonable minds may differ, and no case law is going to provide you with a mathematically perfect formula to figure it out.

 

Case law in this case is going to be especially squishy because you have to throw in two huge wrinkles which there’s going to be very little to guide anyone on.  First you have the problem of whether or not it’s even possible to indict a current president and what impact if any that has on statutes of limitations, and there’s also the issue of several orders tolling the statute of limitations for basically everything in New York State due to COVID lockdowns.  The first of these is a legal curiosity, the second of these has the potential to be a massive legal headache for the entire state.  My limited reading shows that for some instances at least, the New York appellate court has upheld the tolling of statutes of limitations to be valid, so if they suddenly decide they aren’t any more, that sets them up for a whole slew of cases being tossed and redone.  They could try to make a very specific order that, for some reason or another, this specific case isn’t effected by those tolls, but that would likely be a cop out.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, LazyPiranha said:

I haven’t read up on the case law obviously, and I also don’t have a calendar of Trump’s whereabouts from 2017 until now, but I feel like there’s a fair argument to be made in either direction depending on what the schedule looks like.  “Continuous” is a loaded legal term, but like most residency requirements it doesn’t operate as strictly as you left for one day and the clock stops for that twenty four hours, and it’s also not so loose that merely claiming residency and setting one foot in the state for one day each year counts either.  Where Trump’s time out of state falls between these two extremes, reasonable minds may differ, and no case law is going to provide you with a mathematically perfect formula to figure it out.

There is some interesting stuff on the books regarding this issue in the NYS Harvey Weinstein trial. From my recollection, they used data from US Customs and Border patrol on entries and exits from the US to deduct days from the SOL clock so that they could include additional charges. But they didn’t try and deduct domestic travel days.

 

I think you’re spot on in regards to the second paragraph. It’s exactly why I’ve said SOL stuff is not as cut and dried as some seem to think. It’s the stuff good lawyers get paid a lot to argue over!

[LazyPiranha]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

There is some interesting stuff on the books regarding this issue in the NYS Harvey Weinstein trial. From my recollection, they used data from US Customs and Border patrol on entries and exits from the US to deduct days from the SOL clock so that they could include additional charges. But they didn’t try and deduct domestic travel days.

 

I think you’re spot on in regards to the second paragraph. It’s exactly why I’ve said SOL stuff is not as cut and dried as some seem to think. It’s the stuff good lawyers get paid a lot to argue over!

Sure, but I think there’s a difference between someone who is arguably a genuine New York resident who travels a lot and someone who is the president and occasionally returns to their “home” state.  It’s going to be a weird thing to define no matter how you cut it.  All I’m saying is that anyone firmly planting their feet in one camp isn’t appreciating the complexity.  I have no doubt Bragg and co. have their arguments lined up and are decently confident, but that’s not the same thing as having pure math on your side.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

Sure, but I think there’s a difference between someone who is arguably a genuine New York resident who travels a lot and someone who is the president and occasionally returns to their “home” state.  It’s going to be a weird thing to define no matter how you cut it.  All I’m saying is that anyone firmly planting their feet in one camp isn’t appreciating the complexity.  I have no doubt Bragg and co. have their arguments lined up and are decently confident, but that’s not the same thing as having pure math on your side.  

Yeah, I wasn’t disagreeing. Just interesting to see how the state has argued certain types of being out of state as counting towards SOL and others that don’t. It is to highlight what a messy thing it is. It is notable that the state in that case only included travel outside the country because that was almost exactly the number of days they needed to include the additional crimes. No reason to bring in domestic travel at all, so they simply didn’t as it gives one less opportunity for the defendant to raise an objection on. Prosecutors don’t usually want to push the boundaries if they don’t have to.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Yeah, I wasn’t disagreeing. Just interesting to see how the state has argued certain types of being out of state as counting towards SOL and others that don’t. It is to highlight what a messy thing it is. It is notable that the state in that case only included travel outside the country because that was almost exactly the number of days they needed to include the additional crimes. No reason to bring in domestic travel at all, so they simply didn’t as it gives one less opportunity for the defendant to raise an objection on. Prosecutors don’t usually want to push the boundaries if they don’t have to.

Just out of curiosity I looked up when trump was out of country for the presidency. We’re looking at just shy of 2 months total per the Wikipedia article. Not quite enough if basing this solely on international travel. 
 

personally I think he should lean hard into the “can’t prosecute a sitting US president, so the statute of limitations should be extended” angle because that might be his most successful route in federal court. but knowing our judges they’ll agree with this, but then state that it doesn’t effect the SOL because reasons. 

[Spork3245]

 

[Ghost_MH]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Just out of curiosity I looked up when trump was out of country for the presidency. We’re looking at just shy of 2 months total per the Wikipedia article. Not quite enough if basing this solely on international travel. 
 

personally I think he should lean hard into the “can’t prosecute a sitting US president, so the statute of limitations should be extended” angle because that might be his most successful route in federal court. but knowing our judges they’ll agree with this, but then state that it doesn’t effect the SOL because reasons. 

 

It seems perfectly reasonable that you can't allow states to press charges against sitting presidents, in which case what should happen to state crimes committed before they became president? The clock stops when you can't find the person you want to charge because they are unavailable, so it seems reasonable that the clock stops when you can't bring charges against a person for other reasons outside of state control. Our judges can be a totally toss up, though, so who knows.

[Zaku3]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Indeed - I went to a small "elite" liberal arts undergrad attached to an incredible undergraduate engineering school in all related engineering fields. I did the liberal education side of things but I knew a lot of engineers at the engineering school and this is indeed the case.  

 

No group is monolithic but each profession definitely breeds a type.

 

Tbh I have come to the conclusion. That my thought of "damn why am I not an incel?". Implies that my material conditions create incels but I didn't become an incel thus why are they incels. That difference is I respect women enough to go "hey they don't love me and they don't owe loving me to me. I have to earn it." Methodology is is wrong and practice was wrong the core sentiment wasn't. Women being whores wasn't a satisfactory answer to why can't I get a girl. 

 

Similar circumstances but a desire a lust if you will for knowledge meant I discarded wrong answers as opposed to trying to make it fit my world view.

[TwinIon]

I find myself quickly falling back down into the expectation that little will come of all this, despite my most sincere wishes otherwise.

 

The legal theories with elevating these charges to felonies make sense to me, but also feel like the exact kind of thing that a judge might throw out on such a high profile case. The charges relating to state tax evasion at least seem much more likely to stick, so at least there's that.

 

I know we don't have all the details yet, but I'm hoping that someone can help me understand this better. He has been charged with falsifying business records, but each count is only a felony because he intended to commit or conceal another crime. How much of that other crime do they need to prove? Do they need to prove there was a federal campaign finance violation, or state tax evasion, or state election law broken? If so, that seems like a difficult case, but it also seems like they'd charge those crimes as well.

 

With the federal crimes, I understand that the DA here doesn't have jurisdiction, so he couldn't charge Trump with those even if he could prove them. But at the very least state tax evasion falls under the DA's purview, right? So it seems to me that since he wasn't charged with a state tax crime that either the DA doesn't need to prove it in order to get the felony conviction on the falsification of documents. If we assume that the actual falsification of records is a slam dunk, do they need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the falsification was done with a specific motive to commit or conceal one of those other crimes, or is there a lower bar for that part?

[Firewithin]

5 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Been a while, but…

 

 

D1P Legal Team… ASSEMBLE

 

@ByWatterson - Grew a beard and abandoned the profession, then the boards!

@dreammitchconner - Just abandoned the boards, but an email thread with Kal confirmed that the Naughty Dog employee who leaked TLOU2 details would be given the death penalty, so possibly unreliable in these matters!

@Greatoneshere - I honestly can’t remember his deal when it comes to his status on the D1P Legal Team!

@LazyPiranha - Works in New Jersey so maybe not the best person to talk about NYS legal affairs!

@sblfilms - No degree in law, but he reads the articles which makes him more informed than 95% of users here!

 

There’s always someone I forget here, YOLO

 

 

wasnt @Chris- a lawyer or was that a meme or im just stupid  

[Zaku3]

Whatever outcome punishes Trump for his crimes but doesn't lead to the GOP like trying to arrest their way to the Presidency because you can argue a President shouldn't be above the law technically.

[MarSolo]

I just want you all to know that I kept reading the acronym “SOL” as “Shit Out of Luck” and not “Statute of Limitations.”

 

So this thread has been an interesting read for me.

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I know we don't have all the details yet, but I'm hoping that someone can help me understand this better. He has been charged with falsifying business records, but each count is only a felony because he intended to commit or conceal another crime. How much of that other crime do they need to prove? Do they need to prove there was a federal campaign finance violation, or state tax evasion, or state election law broken? If so, that seems like a difficult case, but it also seems like they'd charge those crimes as well.

 

I believe Michael Cohen getting arrested and going to jail relating to this case is what elevates these typically misdemeanor offenses to those of felony charges. As a result, I doubt they have to prove much since Cohen likely already told investigators during his own case that Trump intended to commit or conceal the crime and since he went to jail over it because he was doing Trump's bidding in the first place, that aspect of this case is already proven. I haven't been following this case too closely, so I'm sure others know better here.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

25 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

I just want you all to know that I kept reading the acronym “SOL” as “Shit Out of Luck” and not “Statute of Limitations.”

 

So this thread has been an interesting read for me.

 

 

Virginia’s standardized tests are the Standards of Learning (“the SOL’s”)

[Jason]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Virginia’s standardized tests are the Standards of Learning (“the SOL’s”)

 

The county I'm from has a Special Citizen's Area Transportation department. There's a bunch of minibuses being driven around that say SCAT on them. 

[MarSolo]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

The county I'm from has a Special Citizen's Area Transportation department. There's a bunch of minibuses being driven around that say SCAT on them. 

Baba bee ba ba bada boop.

[silentbob]

2 hours ago, MarSolo said:

I just want you all to know that I kept reading the acronym “SOL” as “Shit Out of Luck” and not “Statute of Limitations.”

 

So this thread has been an interesting read for me.

 

 

Glad I wasn’t the only one, and I hope Shit Outta Luck becomes Trump’s norm 

[stepee]

9 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Been a while, but…

 

 

D1P Legal Team… ASSEMBLE

 

@ByWatterson - Grew a beard and abandoned the profession, then the boards!

@dreammitchconner - Just abandoned the boards, but an email thread with Kal confirmed that the Naughty Dog employee who leaked TLOU2 details would be given the death penalty, so possibly unreliable in these matters!

@Greatoneshere - I honestly can’t remember his deal when it comes to his status on the D1P Legal Team!

@LazyPiranha - Works in New Jersey so maybe not the best person to talk about NYS legal affairs!

@sblfilms - No degree in law, but he reads the articles which makes him more informed than 95% of users here!

 

There’s always someone I forget here, YOLO

 

 

To think of the money these people left on the table by not hitting me up on pm

[Reputator]

2 hours ago, MarSolo said:

I just want you all to know that I kept reading the acronym “SOL” as “Shit Out of Luck” and not “Statute of Limitations.”

 

So this thread has been an interesting read for me.

 

I mean to the ones prosecuting, they might as well be the same thing.

[mclumber1]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

 

The county I'm from has a Special Citizen's Area Transportation department. There's a bunch of minibuses being driven around that say SCAT on them. 

[Ghost_MH]

3 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

I believe Michael Cohen getting arrested and going to jail relating to this case is what elevates these typically misdemeanor offenses to those of felony charges. As a result, I doubt they have to prove much since Cohen likely already told investigators during his own case that Trump intended to commit or conceal the crime and since he went to jail over it because he was doing Trump's bidding in the first place, that aspect of this case is already proven. I haven't been following this case too closely, so I'm sure others know better here.

 

This is likely the case since it's the argument Trump's current lawyer made against Trump before he became Trump's lawyer.

 

Trump Lawyer Joe Tacopina Previously Suggested Hush-Money Payments Made To Stormy Daniels May Have Been Illegal

WWW.FORBES.COM

---

Tacopina said Tuesday he was speaking in hypothetical terms and his statements were mischaracterized.

 

[Anathema-]

My org has regular Cyber Security Awareness Meetings...

[Chris-]

15 hours ago, Firewithin said:

 

wasnt @Chris- a lawyer or was that a meme or im just stupid  

 

No I'm a stupid MBA student.

[Uaarkson]

No fucking wayyyy is JOE TACOPINA a real name 

[Jason]

39 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

No fucking wayyyy is JOE TACOPINA a real name 

 

Counterpoint: Matthew Calamari

[Greatoneshere]

53 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

No fucking wayyyy is JOE TACOPINA a real name 

 

Surely you have heard of Michael Avenatti and ex-National Inquirer owner David Pecker right?!  

[silentbob]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Surely you have heard of Michael Avenatti and ex-National Inquirer owner David Pecker right?!  

there’s was a Dick Assman in Calgary. Letterman had to call to see if it was really a guy and it was

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, silentbob said:

there’s was a Dick Assman in Calgary. Letterman had to call to see if it was really a guy and it was

 

Dick Army

[BloodyHell]

Theres a Richard Suckor near here. Some names are just unfortunate. Really nice old guy, unfortunate name. 

[Brick]

We had a teacher in my high school named Richard Harder. 

[Anathema-]

Andrea Chalupa 

[Spork3245]

"I think a big part of the sort-of 'playing down' of these charges that we've seen is [because of] what the media has done. I think they were expecting something explosive. I mean, they were hoping for a perp walk and maybe an orange jumpsuit - but this is a process, right? There's an arraignment, and this was just the first act of what will be a very long and drawn out process, but to their point though, this is unprecedented to some degree because of who Donald Trump is. He is a former president. And, you know, I'm a law professor, we don't lead very exciting lives, but, I mean... this is the most fun I've had in awhile. We have a long haul to go. We don't know what evidence Alvin Bragg has. We don't know whether these charges are thin, because we don't know what's underlying them.  And so to say 'oh, it's a weak case', or it's this or that: we don't know that. They don't know that. None of those people have been to law school, and I know that."
-Melissa Murray, law professor, NYU.

[Brick]

 

 

[Zaku3]

26 minutes ago, Brick said:

 

 

 

Does he mention how the profit motive for our news outlets means you have to cover Trump because he is a walking/talking news story?