Alright, I’ll trust GatorJMDZ over a former Assistant DA of New York City, who is really one of many attorneys including Alan Dershowitz who feel the same way.
DA Alvin Bragg refuses to comply with Congressional investigation into potential arrest of former president Donald Trump.
As I was perusing NY's criminal statute of limitations, the Laws of New York, Section 30.10, I came across this: 2(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five years after the commission thereof; 2(c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years after the commission thereof; 3(d) A prosecution for any misdemeanor set forth in the tax law or chapter forty-six of the administrative code of the city of New York must be commenced within three years after the commission thereof. 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 or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence. However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two. Something 715's DA correctly stated was: "What this all boils down to is this: Whether or not Trump can be prosecuted could come down to a simple calculation of days that he was legally subject to apprehension for his offenses. Trumps defense team will point towards his continued residency in New York State during his presidency, and that he still spent considerable periods of time in New York even once declaring himself a resident a Florida. The prosecution will counter that Trump has ceased to live in New York once he assumed office as president, and since leaving office has lived as a resident in Florida. The prosecution might further argue that Trump's entire four-year presidential term should be subtracted from the clock. Justice Alito even noted in his Trump v. Vance dissent that this might be a valid interpretation of New York law." I can't imagine any judge ruling Trump was a continuous resident of New York while he was POTUS. That result would defy legal imagination.
If I read this correctly the payment happened in 2016? So the misdemeanor is out? But the felony is still on the table due to time away from NY while he was President?
Jim Jordan has some big ones after he blew off his subpoena. I guess you didn't bother reading the last paragraph of the letter.
No. It's not the payment, it is the filing of the fraudulent returns/reports claiming the whore payoff as legal expenses that constitutes the crime. (When I say "whore" in this context, I do not mean to be disrespectful to Stormy Daniels, she doesn't try to hide or justify what she did for a living. I mean it as an insult to our former Christian president who utilized her services while he was married, paid for her silence and repeatedly lied about every aspect of the situation.)
Hmmmmm…. Trump's fans sent him $1.5 million in 3 days after he falsely predicted that he'd be arrested Tuesday
The police estimated the crowd protesting Trump's impending arrest outside the DA's office at between 3 and 6 depending on who was going to the bathroom when they counted.
Go find a post where I posted legally inaccurate information. There should be plenty for you to go through. I'll hang up and listen.
Ladies and gentlemen, GatorJMDZ has never once misstated the law. He is the greatest expert the legal profession has to offer and it's a privilege to have him on Too Hot. Want a cookie?
He wasn't subpoenaed, he was sent a letter. Even if he were subpoenaed, everyone knows damn well he cannot talk about any ongoing probe or case. Fools errand from the get go.
If Trump publicly disseminated a leak which he himself claimed was an illegal leak, was that dissemination also illegal or simply free speech? What if the leak was from his lawyers? Alternatively, if Trump completely fabricated the claim that his arrest was imminent on a date certain, could there be any potential sanction associated with that? I am half kidding and doubt anything will come of it either way. But while I understand the concern about the prosecution being overly harsh to Trump because of who he is, I wonder if there would be any repercussions if a typical potential defendant who is the subject of grand jury proceeding were to attack the prosecutor, leak information about the proceedings, or lie about the proceedings. Everything Trump touches seems to turn into a circus.
If trump knows how to do one thing right in life (and it may be the only thing), it’s how to get the attention he wants from whomever he wants it from almost effortlessly. And especially his supporters, he plays them like a fiddle, and they have never seemed to pick up on the scam. he likely leaked this himself to try and get the pushback and attention it’s now getting. The base gets riled up, it forces his sycophants to act, like Jim Jordan, and others, and they all paint him as the victim.
So there is a rape case against Trump? A federal judge has ruled that the jurors will be kept anonymous in an upcoming defamation and rape trial against Donald Trump so the former president and his supporters can't harass them. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan cited Trump's history of targeting courts, judges, public officials, "and even individual jurors in other matters." Kaplan said that secrecy is necessary because "of the unprecedented circumstances in which this trial will take place, including the extensive pretrial publicity and a very strong risk that jurors will fear harassment, unwanted invasions of their privacy, and retaliation." He cited the Capitol riot and Trump's recent calls for protest ahead of a looming indictment in New York as evidence that the jurors in this case could be targeted. The Trump rape case jurors will go to court in secret so Trump can't harass them
Summarizing, the problems in complying with the request from Jordan, et al: 1) no legitimate legislative objective for the request 2) ongoing criminal investigation to remain confidential for the protection of all parties involved until an announcement is made, consistent with constitutional obligations, 3) State investigation where Congress has no authority to intercede, 4) Congress' request of non-public files on behalf of Defendant appear to be tampering in a criminal investigation. Other than those minor misunderstandings of the judicial process, state and federal laws, the Constitution, and the authority of Congress, the request from these Congressional leaders was perfect.
