Mar-a-lago Bebop

[CaptainAwesome]

Lotta derangement syndrome on both sides. Trump *does* seem to have committed crimes, and the defense also gets to participate in jury selection. Do other people also commit crimes and get away with it? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't mean that these ones shouldn't be prosecuted.

If this is a perfectly fine and just prosecution, what crime has Trump covered up with these bookkeeping falsehoods? The felony upgrade, and thus bypass of statute of limitations, hinges on that. No crime has been specified, as far as I know. Did I miss something? No one seems to have offered any information on this.

[mikeylikey]

Lotta derangement syndrome on both sides. Trump *does* seem to have committed crimes, and the defense also gets to participate in jury selection. Do other people also commit crimes and get away with it? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't mean that these ones shouldn't be prosecuted.

If this is a perfectly fine and just prosecution, what crime has Trump covered up with these bookkeeping falsehoods? The felony upgrade, and thus bypass of statute of limitations, hinges on that. No crime has been specified, as far as I know. Did I miss something? No one seems to have offered any information on this.

Campaign finance violations. The theory is that the $130k materially helped his campaign, ergo it should have been reported on the campaign's financial disclosures, which it obviously wasn't.


This will probably languish in dispositive motions and appeals on those for years before, (if), it ever goes to trail. No way it sees a jury before the election.

[5hout]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-da ... 35535.html

Three thoughts:

1: People who spent the last 3 years arguing that any exercise of congressional investigatory power, no matter how punitive, trivial or mean-spirited the reason was a valid exercise of government authority better toe their own line on this one.
2: Suing a member of congress for a congressional investigation? That's a bold strategy cotton.
3: I don't see how this ends well for Bragg or his constituents (who are on the hook for the bills).

[hector]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-da ... 35535.html

Three thoughts:

1: People who spent the last 3 years arguing that any exercise of congressional investigatory power, no matter how punitive, trivial or mean-spirited the reason was a valid exercise of government authority better toe their own line on this one.
2: Suing a member of congress for a congressional investigation? That's a bold strategy cotton.
3: I don't see how this ends well for Bragg or his constituents (who are on the hook for the bills).

Re #3, You don’t think, win or lose, many people will see Bragg as in the right? That Bragg won’t now have a national (rather than local) base when he’s raising money to run for office?

[5hout]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-da ... 35535.html

Three thoughts:

1: People who spent the last 3 years arguing that any exercise of congressional investigatory power, no matter how punitive, trivial or mean-spirited the reason was a valid exercise of government authority better toe their own line on this one.
2: Suing a member of congress for a congressional investigation? That's a bold strategy cotton.
3: I don't see how this ends well for Bragg or his constituents (who are on the hook for the bills).

Re #3, You don’t think, win or lose, many people will see Bragg as in the right? That Bragg won’t now have a national (rather than local) base when he’s raising money to run for office?

I'm a dumb. On a second read it's he's not (afai can tell) asking for damages and this is a 100% routine motion to squash. He has to file it b/c a congressional subpoena is not part of an ongoing case so nothing to file an objection to without suing. I had thought he filed to squash + dmgs.

Disregard, entire article sensationalist nonsense.

[dw]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-da ... 35535.html

Three thoughts:

1: People who spent the last 3 years arguing that any exercise of congressional investigatory power, no matter how punitive, trivial or mean-spirited the reason was a valid exercise of government authority better toe their own line on this one.
2: Suing a member of congress for a congressional investigation? That's a bold strategy cotton.
3: I don't see how this ends well for Bragg or his constituents (who are on the hook for the bills).

Regarding point 1 this strikes me as a overstepping the limits of federal authority. Bragg is making a state criminal case, and it isn't concluded yet. There is a line of appeal that runs potentially all the way to the SCOTUS. Can a confessional investigation of a state prosecution of a (currently) private citizen really be consistent with any notion of state police powers? Idk.

Would I say the same if this were a 60s style civil rights abuse in a Southern state? Unsure...but even then there would be a clear line of appeal through the federal courts on civil rights grounds, with any congressional investigation seeming extraneous to that.

Whereas investigating/harassing a sitting President seems like the essence of checks and balances.

[cgeorg]

Lotta derangement syndrome on both sides. Trump *does* seem to have committed crimes, and the defense also gets to participate in jury selection. Do other people also commit crimes and get away with it? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't mean that these ones shouldn't be prosecuted.

If this is a perfectly fine and just prosecution, what crime has Trump covered up with these bookkeeping falsehoods? The felony upgrade, and thus bypass of statute of limitations, hinges on that. No crime has been specified, as far as I know. Did I miss something? No one seems to have offered any information on this.

First link I found

The statute of limitations is “tolled,” or paused, when the defendant is not continuously present in the state, Paul Schiff Berman, a law professor at The George Washington University, said.

This exception is explicitly stated in New York law:

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.

The prosecution may argue in Trump’s case that he was continuously out of New York while he served as president from 2017 to 2021, CUNY School of Law professor Jeffrey Kirchmeier said.

Schiff Berman said former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also issued an executive order that paused all statutes of limitations in New York for about seven months during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are legal arguments that the pause was actually longer, due to the language used in the executive order.

[CaptainAwesome]

First link I found

The statute of limitations is “tolled,” or paused, when the defendant is not continuously present in the state, Paul Schiff Berman, a law professor at The George Washington University, said.

This exception is explicitly stated in New York law:

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.

The prosecution may argue in Trump’s case that he was continuously out of New York while he served as president from 2017 to 2021, CUNY School of Law professor Jeffrey Kirchmeier said.

Schiff Berman said former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also issued an executive order that paused all statutes of limitations in New York for about seven months during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are legal arguments that the pause was actually longer, due to the language used in the executive order.

"However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two." In New York, statute of limitations for a misdemeanor is 2 years, and 5 years for a felony. If it were charged as a misdemeanor like it actually is, it would be outside the statute. So again, it gets to be within the statute precisely because of the felony charges. The felony upgrade is utter horseshit, as is this case to begin with. It's a twisted little urban DA using his office to mess with a political candidate's ability to campaign. This case getting to proceed is a really fucking dangerous precedent for using lawfare to fuck with the electoral process in this country. If it becomes normalized both parties will end up using it however they can, which is always what happens when a new low is found in politics.

[Philbert]

First link I found

The statute of limitations is “tolled,” or paused, when the defendant is not continuously present in the state, Paul Schiff Berman, a law professor at The George Washington University, said.

This exception is explicitly stated in New York law:

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.

The prosecution may argue in Trump’s case that he was continuously out of New York while he served as president from 2017 to 2021, CUNY School of Law professor Jeffrey Kirchmeier said.

Schiff Berman said former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also issued an executive order that paused all statutes of limitations in New York for about seven months during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are legal arguments that the pause was actually longer, due to the language used in the executive order.

"However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two." In New York, statute of limitations for a misdemeanor is 2 years, and 5 years for a felony. If it were charged as a misdemeanor like it actually is, it would be outside the statute. So again, it gets to be within the statute precisely because of the felony charges. The felony upgrade is utter horseshit, as is this case to begin with. It's a twisted little urban DA using his office to mess with a political candidate's ability to campaign. This case getting to proceed is a really fucking dangerous precedent for using lawfare to fuck with the electoral process in this country. If it becomes normalized both parties will end up using it however they can, which is always what happens when a new low is found in politics.

NYC: "We have to prosecute Trump to prove that no man is above the law!"
Normal people: "Sounds reasonable, what are you going to prosecute him for?"
NYC: "We will cobble together a combination of offences to make something serious enough to disqualify him from office!"
Normal people"???"

[cgeorg]

"However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two." In New York, statute of limitations for a misdemeanor is 2 years, and 5 years for a felony. If it were charged as a misdemeanor like it actually is, it would be outside the statute. So again, it gets to be within the statute precisely because of the felony charges. The felony upgrade is utter horseshit, as is this case to begin with. It's a twisted little urban DA using his office to mess with a political candidate's ability to campaign. This case getting to proceed is a really fucking dangerous precedent for using lawfare to fuck with the electoral process in this country. If it becomes normalized both parties will end up using it however they can, which is always what happens when a new low is found in politics.

Ok, you don't care about alleged campaign finance violations or alleged lying to tax authorities. Nothing bars a convicted felon from holding the office of President of the United States of America, and from what I have read if he were to be elected while in prison (again, from what I've read, unlikely he'd get a prison sentence for these things) he'd likely be let out to serve. Electoral process unfucked, cast your vote as you wish.

Speaking of fucking with the electoral process in this country, I'm sure you're happy to know that there is still the ongoing investigation into Trump's interference with the electoral process in Georgia. And the federal investigation into Trump's efforts to block the certification of the 2020 election, which I've seen Pence is now willing to talk about.

[dw]

"However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two." In New York, statute of limitations for a misdemeanor is 2 years, and 5 years for a felony. If it were charged as a misdemeanor like it actually is, it would be outside the statute. So again, it gets to be within the statute precisely because of the felony charges. The felony upgrade is utter horseshit, as is this case to begin with. It's a twisted little urban DA using his office to mess with a political candidate's ability to campaign. This case getting to proceed is a really fucking dangerous precedent for using lawfare to fuck with the electoral process in this country. If it becomes normalized both parties will end up using it however they can, which is always what happens when a new low is found in politics.

Ok, you don't care about alleged campaign finance violations or alleged lying to tax authorities. Nothing bars a convicted felon from holding the office of President of the United States of America, and from what I have read if he were to be elected while in prison (again, from what I've read, unlikely he'd get a prison sentence for these things) he'd likely be let out to serve. Electoral process unfucked, cast your vote as you wish.

Speaking of fucking with the electoral process in this country, I'm sure you're happy to know that there is still the ongoing investigation into Trump's interference with the electoral process in Georgia. And the federal investigation into Trump's efforts to block the certification of the 2020 election, which I've seen Pence is now willing to talk about.

The claim is that by normal prosecutorial standards the charges would not have been made. Not that there is no way they could conceivably be made.

You might have to Google a conservative source to find it.

[cgeorg]

Ok, you don't care about alleged campaign finance violations or alleged lying to tax authorities. Nothing bars a convicted felon from holding the office of President of the United States of America, and from what I have read if he were to be elected while in prison (again, from what I've read, unlikely he'd get a prison sentence for these things) he'd likely be let out to serve. Electoral process unfucked, cast your vote as you wish.

Speaking of fucking with the electoral process in this country, I'm sure you're happy to know that there is still the ongoing investigation into Trump's interference with the electoral process in Georgia. And the federal investigation into Trump's efforts to block the certification of the 2020 election, which I've seen Pence is now willing to talk about.

The claim is that by normal prosecutorial standards the charges would not have been made. Not that there is no way they could conceivably be made.

You might have to Google a conservative source to find it.

No they probably wouldn't have been. One could argue that Trump and normal standards don't really go in the same sentence.

[dw]

Ok, you don't care about alleged campaign finance violations or alleged lying to tax authorities. Nothing bars a convicted felon from holding the office of President of the United States of America, and from what I have read if he were to be elected while in prison (again, from what I've read, unlikely he'd get a prison sentence for these things) he'd likely be let out to serve. Electoral process unfucked, cast your vote as you wish.

Speaking of fucking with the electoral process in this country, I'm sure you're happy to know that there is still the ongoing investigation into Trump's interference with the electoral process in Georgia. And the federal investigation into Trump's efforts to block the certification of the 2020 election, which I've seen Pence is now willing to talk about.

The claim is that by normal prosecutorial standards the charges would not have been made. Not that there is no way they could conceivably be made.

You might have to Google a conservative source to find it.

No they probably wouldn't have been. One could argue that Trump and normal standards don't really go in the same sentence.

Well...perhaps they should?

[CaptainAwesome]

Ok, you don't care about alleged campaign finance violations or alleged lying to tax authorities. Nothing bars a convicted felon from holding the office of President of the United States of America, and from what I have read if he were to be elected while in prison (again, from what I've read, unlikely he'd get a prison sentence for these things) he'd likely be let out to serve. Electoral process unfucked, cast your vote as you wish.

Speaking of fucking with the electoral process in this country, I'm sure you're happy to know that there is still the ongoing investigation into Trump's interference with the electoral process in Georgia. And the federal investigation into Trump's efforts to block the certification of the 2020 election, which I've seen Pence is now willing to talk about.

The claim is that by normal prosecutorial standards the charges would not have been made. Not that there is no way they could conceivably be made.

You might have to Google a conservative source to find it.

No they probably wouldn't have been. One could argue that Trump and normal standards don't really go in the same sentence.

Well...perhaps they should?

No, orange man must wear the orange jumpsuit or we will all be literally shaking rn.

[cgeorg]

The claim is that by normal prosecutorial standards the charges would not have been made. Not that there is no way they could conceivably be made.

You might have to Google a conservative source to find it.

No they probably wouldn't have been. One could argue that Trump and normal standards don't really go in the same sentence.

Well...perhaps they should?

I was implying that he does not seem to follow any normal standards.

For instance:
Normal: Accepting the results of a lost election.
Not normal: Attempting to undermine democracy to hold on to power, continuing to spread lies 3 years(!) after having lost said election, undermining faith in our electoral process for a large chunk of the electorate.

Hell Al Gore had a legitimate case and still gave up in order to preserve electoral faith.

[dw]

The claim is that by normal prosecutorial standards the charges would not have been made. Not that there is no way they could conceivably be made.

You might have to Google a conservative source to find it.

No they probably wouldn't have been. One could argue that Trump and normal standards don't really go in the same sentence.

Well...perhaps they should?

I was implying that he does not seem to follow any normal standards.

For instance:
Normal: Accepting the results of a lost election.
Not normal: Attempting to undermine democracy to hold on to power, continuing to spread lies 3 years(!) after having lost said election, undermining faith in our electoral process for a large chunk of the electorate.

Hell Al Gore had a legitimate case and still gave up in order to preserve electoral faith.

I don't see what bearing that has on whether the current prosecution is justified or reasonable.

[cgeorg]

The claim is that by normal prosecutorial standards the charges would not have been made. Not that there is no way they could conceivably be made.

You might have to Google a conservative source to find it.

No they probably wouldn't have been. One could argue that Trump and normal standards don't really go in the same sentence.

Well...perhaps they should?

I was implying that he does not seem to follow any normal standards.

For instance:
Normal: Accepting the results of a lost election.
Not normal: Attempting to undermine democracy to hold on to power, continuing to spread lies 3 years(!) after having lost said election, undermining faith in our electoral process for a large chunk of the electorate.

Hell Al Gore had a legitimate case and still gave up in order to preserve electoral faith.

I don't see what bearing that has on whether the current prosecution is justified or reasonable.

It doesn't, it was a response you not seeming to understand what I implied in the bolded. Whether a prosecution is justified or reasonable is a different argument than whether a prosecution falls under normal prosecutorial standards.

[dw]

Seems a little subtle to me.

[cgeorg]

Seems a little subtle to me.

When someone does things that haven't been done, they can open themselves to having things done that haven't been done.

I don't know how much my biases play into this - I will openly admit that I don't like Trump and I think he is generally bad for the country. He also craves attention, so while he may not be more bad for the country than many other politicians and powerful people (McConnell comes to mind), his actions are much more in the spotlight, and as a consequence of that he's going to be targeted like this. I feel kind of ambivalent about these specific charges, I'd be much happier to see what evidence has been gathered in the other investigations into his conduct around the election.

The bottom line is that people's opinions of Trump are 99.999% formed. This won't change anything about the 2024 election, aside from taking money from the pockets of small donors. Everything about him, for or against, is dog and pony at this point. I preferred having a reprieve from news about the man.

[dw]

I also think Trump is bad for the country and I do think extralegal measures are in fact sometimes justified.

But two points here: (1) if it's too blatant it's likely to backfire, as I fear here. (2) I think CaptainAwesome was addressing the legal issue of whether this is a normal or correct application of the law.

To be fair IANAL and just skimmed one or two articles about this so maybe the prosecution is in fact justified in normal terms. It doesn't seem that way I though.