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

[Reputator]

Five years, eh? Well it's definitely past that point.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, Reputator said:

Five years, eh? Well it's definitely past that point.

I would imagine this hinges on when the prosecution commences. Would a grand jury investigation starting within five years meet that standard? I dunno!

[Guest]

I mentioned previously that there are some statute of limitations questions to be answered. Will be interesting to see how Bragg justifies it. Not familiar enough with NYS case law on this to even hazard a guess, but it's not exactly a rarity that cases like this get thrown out during the pre-trial motions on such procedural grounds. I mean, sometimes these cases get overturned by SCOTUS on procedural grounds. It's not a sure thing this will move forward very far, IMO.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I mentioned previously that there are some statute of limitations questions to be answered. Will be interesting to see how Bragg justifies it. Not familiar enough with NYS case law on this to even hazard a guess, but it's not exactly a rarity that cases like this get thrown out during the pre-trial motions on such procedural grounds. I mean, sometimes these cases get overturned by SCOTUS on procedural grounds. It's not a sure thing this will move forward very far, IMO.

Yeah. Plus with him being wealthy and powerful, he will be getting the full letter and intent of the law. 
 

but usually the case law benefits the prosecution so who knows!

[Zaku3]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Yeah. Plus with him being wealthy and powerful, he will be getting the full letter and intent of the law. 
 

but usually the case law benefits the prosecution so who knows!

 

I am sure it benefits them in this case because he (allegedly) did do this. 

 

They normally drop these cases but it's telling they are not. 

 

We are in uncharted waters.

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

If (when?) these charges get tossed because Bragg "ignored" something as relatively simple -- and yet really freakin' important -- as the statute of limitations, he should be immediately disbarred.

[5timechamp]

Law and Order SVU is depressing as all hell, the thing that always stands out is how often the cases hinge not so much on the truth but how evidence or facts are suppressed… just curious to see which legal loophole will be played in this one to save the Don.. I just always assumed the ultimate endgame would be a GOP president just granting him a pardon.. as time passes you see its never been necessary

[CitizenVectron]

What is the argument for statute of limitations for serious crimes (not just misdemeanors)? 

[Reputator]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

What is the argument for statute of limitations for serious crimes (not just misdemeanors)? 

 

I don't know about specific arguments but I just think of all the rape charges that get dropped because of SoL.

[marioandsonic]

I still maintain nothing will happen and Trump will win in 2024.

[rc0101]

 I read the statute of limitations applies while you are a resident of NY and shall not include any time where the defendant is continuously outside of the state.  
 

also I’m fairly sure the DA will have thought of something as simple as this. 

[ThreePi]

I find it hard to believe that the DA would just completely overlook statute of limitation stuff.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, rc0101 said:

Obviously no lawyer but I read the statute of limitations applies while you are a resident of NY and shall not include any time where the defendant is continuously outside of the state.  

That’s what I’m getting from this vox article:

Will Trump be convicted? The glaring legal problem with the Manhattan DA’s case. - Vox

WWW.VOX.COM

Quote

There’s also one more twist here. The statute of limitations for the felony version of the false records crime is five years, while the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor version is only two years. Trump’s final payment to Cohen occurred in December 2017, which was more than five years ago.

That said, New York law sometimes allows the clock to be stopped on these statutes of limitations when the defendant was out of the state, and Trump spent four years living in the White House before relocating to Florida.

Quote

4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state 

 

[Guest]

This is what I was getting at regarding the case law issue and the statute of limitations. Trump was not continuously outside of the state during the period, and his whereabouts weren’t unknown generally. So does case law say that living elsewhere but returning to the state from time to time, as Trump did over the last 6 years, not meet the plain reading of the text? I would also suggest the section explains the reasoning anyway, which is that the state can’t be penalized on SOL grounds because a person was hard to find. Trump has been terrifically easy to find this whole time, including outside of when he was actually POTUS.

Beats me as to what NYS case law says about this, haven’t bothered to dig in yet. Certainly possible it is on Bragg’s side, or he may be reaching and even hoping to expand the case law moving forward. 

[mclumber1]

Trump also officially stopped being a resident of New York in 2019.  Although I'm not sure this plays into the SOL at all:

 

Trump, Lifelong New Yorker, Declares Himself a Resident of Florida - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

The president filed a “declaration of domicile” last month saying that his property in Palm Beach will be his permanent residence.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is what I was getting at regarding the case law issue and the statute of limitations. Trump was not continuously outside of the state during the period, and his whereabouts weren’t unknown generally. So does case law say that living elsewhere but returning to the state from time to time, as Trump did over the last 6 years, not meet the plain reading of the text? I would also suggest the section explains the reasoning anyway, which is that the state can’t be penalized on SOL grounds because a person was hard to find. Trump has been terrifically easy to find this whole time, including outside of when he was actually POTUS.

Beats me as to what NYS case law says about this, haven’t bothered to dig in yet. Certainly possible it is on Bragg’s side, or he may be reaching and even hoping to expand the case law moving forward. 

Same for the second paragraph. But My gut is that the law is explicitly for people who do occasional business (crimes) in NY but don’t live there like CEOs who take residency in a tax haven and/or Florida, or waste management professionals involved in the murder business. 
 

and because trump is such a public figure it would be even harder for him to say “I was in NYState!” To cut down on the statute of limitations

[Jason]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

and because trump is such a public figure it would be even harder for him to say “I was in NYState!” To cut down on the statute of limitations

 

Literally impossible for a president to lie about having been somewhere given the ground stop at the airport when the president arrives, the motorcade shutdowns, the Secret Service perimeter wherever he winds up going, etc. 

[outsida]

This statute of limitations argument is stupid and even trumps lawyers didn’t attempt to make it in court. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, outsida said:

This statute of limitations argument is stupid and even trumps lawyers didn’t attempt to make it in court. 

It is decidedly not stupid, and it isn’t the time to make it. There will be motion hearings in the not too distant future and you can be 100% sure they will indeed raise the issue because the plain reading of the law says this charge isn’t prosecutable due to SOL. There would need to be some case law that says different, or a court willing to establish new precedent.
 

Even if there is case law that is on Bragg’s side, the defendant will argue why this case doesn’t fit the fact pattern of the established precedents.

[Zaku3]

15 minutes ago, outsida said:

This statute of limitations argument is stupid and even trumps lawyers didn’t attempt to make it in court. 

 

It is but if you can get your client off on a technicality you do that. If it's all they got it's better then nothing. 

 

Edit: For trials like this it is still with a jury of peers and a judge provides a sentence?

 

I kinda fear this situation not gonna lie. It's an escalation of our political tension and we really need to be de-escalating.

[Air_Delivery]

1 minute ago, Zaku3 said:

 

It is but if you can get your client off on a technicality you do that. If it's all they got it's better then nothing. 

 

I kinda fear this situation not gonna lie. It's an escalation of our political tension and we really need to be de-escalating.

MAGA has to be taken head on. To ignore it would let is fester.

[Zaku3]

1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

MAGA has to be taken head on. To ignore it would let is fester.

 

Oo I am 100% on board. I'm just older and wiser now so I try to think about the blowback of my actions. I do this by trying to not do things that could result in blowback. I don't want to inadvertantly make things worse for others. I can but I need to like live with my actions.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Zaku3 said:

For trials like this it is still with a jury of peers and a judge provides a sentence?

It is a jury trial, and the judge does the sentencing.

[Reputator]

3 minutes ago, Zaku3 said:

 

Oo I am 100% on board. I'm just older and wiser now so I try to think about the blowback of my actions. I do this by trying to not do things that could result in blowback. I don't want to inadvertantly make things worse for others. I can but I need to like live with my actions.

 

Well on the subject of consequences, I for one am in favor of setting a precedent that Presidents can be found guilty of crimes related to their presidency.

[Zaku3]

Just now, Reputator said:

 

Well on the subject of consequences, I for one am in favor of setting a precedent that Presidents can be found guilty of crimes related to their presidency.

 

Yes this kinda thing. This is saying "Yes even a former President can be sent to jail for crimes commited in his name before he becomes a president." That leads to he can be tried for crimes commited while in and eventually while holding the office of President.

 

Our president's by virtue of the job could be described as war criminals. I wouldn't want that job if I can get put on trial for crimes commited on behalf of the state.

 

I'm watching history in the making and being a history nerd means I know grim dark things happen and I should expect the grim dark things to happen. Plus I don't want grim dark things to happen. They tend to interupt the flow of my day.

[Zaku3]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is a jury trial, and the judge does the sentencing.

 

Thanks. Sorry I'm high and Phoenix Wright is funny but it's technically Japanese court. So my go to is Phoenix Wright but my reality is Kamala Harris would be opposing Phoenix Wright.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

Well on the subject of consequences, I for one am in favor of setting a precedent that Presidents can be found guilty of crimes related to their presidency.

 

I'm going to be annoyingly technical here, but these are crimes related to his campaign (though he  has not been explicitly charged with campaign law violations), not his presidency

[mclumber1]

11 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

Well on the subject of consequences, I for one am in favor of setting a precedent that Presidents can be found guilty of crimes related to their presidency.

 

I'll go even further:  A president can be indicted (state or federal) while they are President, but there will be no trial until after they leave office.  

[Guest]

It is a shockingly bad idea to allow criminal charges against sitting presidents. The ability for bad actors in the opposition party to gum up the works on the duties of the POTUS would render the job impossible to do. There are several processes to remove them, file away after they are out.

[Air_Delivery]

28 minutes ago, Zaku3 said:

 

Oo I am 100% on board. I'm just older and wiser now so I try to think about the blowback of my actions. I do this by trying to not do things that could result in blowback. I don't want to inadvertantly make things worse for others. I can but I need to like live with my actions.

You have to think like a fascist. They see appeasement as weakness. Their strategy is all bluff because they know democrats are pussies that don't wanna rock the boat. 

[mclumber1]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is a shockingly bad idea to allow criminal charges against sitting presidents. The ability for bad actors in the opposition party to gum up the works on the duties of the POTUS would render the job impossible to do. There are several processes to remove them, file away after they are out.

 

The problem with this is that it's simply a rule (not a law) within the DoJ.  Either Congress makes a law saying Presidents CAN be indicted, or they make a law that says they are immune from criminal prosecution while they are in office.  The status quo is untenable either way. 

[Reputator]

36 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I'm going to be annoyingly technical here, but these are crimes related to his campaign (though he  has not been explicitly charged with campaign law violations), not his presidency

 

Yes I'm aware. I'm lumping in crimes done in pursuit of the Presidency here.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The problem with this is that it's simply a rule (not a law) within the DoJ.  Either Congress makes a law saying Presidents CAN be indicted, or they make a law that says they are immune from criminal prosecution while they are in office.  The status quo is untenable either way. 

Uhhh, no. It is based on a pretty fair interpretation of the constitution, and contemporary writings to the constitution strongly suggest that is indeed what was meant. It’s con-law if the interpretation is correct. The OLC memos on the subject are just a distillation of the constitutional argument.

[CitizenVectron]

49 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is a shockingly bad idea to allow criminal charges against sitting presidents. The ability for bad actors in the opposition party to gum up the works on the duties of the POTUS would render the job impossible to do. There are several processes to remove them, file away after they are out.

 

It's only a problem because a presidential republic is a bad form of government. If your head of government was only in the position at the pleasure of their party, then they could be removed and charged with a crime quite quickly (which is good). But because there is no actual way to easily remove an American head of government at this point, it bungs up the whole idea. I strongly believe that a government leader should be able to be tried and convicted during the term of their office. But the key thing is to remove them during that term, not wait until after. A parliamentary system of government allows for PMs to be swapped at-will by their party, meaning you can dump a loser, if needed.

[marioandsonic]

Is there any reason for optimism at this point?