Here's what I said last year when Joe started claiming the Statute of Limitations in NY barred these charges:

""Any period after the commission of the crime where the defendant was continously outside the State is excluded from the time limit applicable to the commencement of a criminal action. https://www.sellonilaw.com/criminal-procedure/statute-of-limitations/#:~:text=Most%20felony%20offenses%20have%20a,one%20year%20statute%20of%20limitations.

So Trump's term of office and later period of residence in Florida wouldn't count against the Statute of Limitations period (which is five years for felonies in NY)."

"Here's the relevant provision on New York's Criminal Procedure Law, CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i):

"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."

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/bonus-question%E2%80%A6.196665/page-13

"I'll say that any motion to dismiss based on the Statute of Limitations will be denied.

Do you want to claim it won't?"

AJ: I claim it will not be denied....if there is such a motion.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/bonus-question%E2%80%A6.196665/page-15

@averagejoe1 said
But I was asking for you to please justify, in your learned words, not that of a judge, how can action can go forward on a matter where the Statute of Limitations has expired?
I didn't read judge's opinion, I can only picture a judge like the one who just threw the book at Trump out of hate. This judge may hate. Lets say everyone in NY hates him. How can the case go forward? The Statute of Limitations has run.

The Statute of Limitations period was "tolled" for the commencement of any felony actions from March 20, 2020 to May 6, 2021 pursuant to the NY Governor's executive orders during the COVID emergency pursuant to NY law. Thus, "the deadline for the prosecution of the alleged conduct was extended by one year and 47 days. In other words, this felony prosecution had to be commenced within 6 years and 47 days from when the crimes were allegedly committed. The earliest conduct described in the Indictment allegedly occurred on February 14, 2017. The tolled period or extension for commencing the action thus brought the conduct described in the Indictment within the prescribed five-year time limit." https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20 p. 24,

The judge finding that reasoning sufficient did not reach the argument that Criminal Procedure Law § 30.10(4)(a)(1) applies and Trump has been "continuously outside this state" and the period of his absence should not be included in calculating the Statute of Limitations. That was the argument I made in the thread last year and I still think it is a valid, independent ground for rejecting the SOL defense in this case.

So, no matter how many times you falsely claim it, the Statute of Limitations has not expired though Trump would be free to argue differently on appeal if and when he is convicted of these charges.

"Pecker also revealed that his tabloid had never had a "catch-and-kill" agreement with Trump prior to his candidacy for president." https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/top-3-takeaways-from-day-6-of-trump-s-hush-money-trial/ar-AA1nxddF

OUCH.

Pecker's testimony today didn't tell us anything we've haven't known for years, but it got into evidence that Trump was directly involved in scheming with Pecker and others for them to use funds to help his campaign far in excess of legally allowable limits. This bolsters two of the theories regarding the intent to commit another crime which elevates the falsification of business records to a felony under the NY Penal Law.

It also is a pretty strong refutation of the implausible defense claim that these "catch and kill" payments were to protect Trump's family rather than directly linked to the 2016 election.

While right wingers continue to drag this thread off-topic, Trump's lawyers aren't having the same luck in the courtroom. Opening statements were concluded, Trump got some bad news from the Sandoval hearing (which determines what a defendant can be questioned about should he take the stand - though that is highly unlikely here) and the first witness, David Pecker, was called.

Court did adjourn early because of Passover- where Christians and Jews celebrate the mass murder of children (it must be Rajk"s favorite holiday).

@averagejoe1 said
Your quoted articles are tiresome. Aww man we will never know the real Marauder, you are the guy behind he curtain in Alice in Wonderland!!

Please go behind your curtain, and tell us why the trial could go forward even though the statute of ilmmitations had expired. I know, but our readers need some of your links!!!! zzzzzzzzz

I answered that in the first post in this thread.

If you're too lazy to read it the short version is: the Judge ruled the Statute of Limitations has not expired under NY law.

For those too lazy to read the indictment:

The People presented evidence to the Grand Jury that between August 2015 and December 2017, Michael Cohen ("Cohen"😉, a lawyer who worked for the Trump Organization and also held the role of Defendant's Special Counsel, paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels (also known as Stephanie Clifford hereinafter "Daniels"😉 prior to the 2016 presidential election. The payment was part of an agreement between Defendant and Daniels whereby Daniels agreed to not publicize information about a sexual encounter she had with the Defendant. Defendant was concerned about the negative impact that information could have on his campaign for President of the United States."

"On or about October 10, 2016, Cohen spoke with Keith Davidson ("Davidson"😉, then the attorney for Daniels, about Daniels' sexual encounter with Defendant. At Defendant's direction, Cohen and Davidson agreed that Daniels would keep the information about the encounter with Defendant concealed, out of the public's eye, in exchange for $130,000. As with the McDougal agreement, Cohen discussed payment for the Daniels agreement with Weisselberg [Then Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization - no1].. After this discussion, Cohen agreed he would pay Ms. Daniels after confirming that Defendant would reimburse him. To execute the transaction, Cohen opened a bank account in the name of Essential Consultants LLC. He transferred $131,000 into the account from his personal funds and then wired Davidson $130,000 from the Essential Consultants account.

On or about January 2017, Defendant, Weisselberg and Cohen agreed that Cohen would be paid a total of $420,000 to reimburse him for the payment to Daniels. The total represented a $60,000 year end bonus to Cohen for his work at the Trump Organization in 2016, the $130,000 payment he made to Daniels, a $50,000 payment to Cohen for expenses he claimed he incurred working on Defendant's campaign and an additional $180,000 to ensure Cohen was fully reimbursed after taxes. It was agreed that the $420,000 would be paid in installments on invoices Cohen would periodically send to Defendant through the Trump Organization for alleged legal services rendered. On or about February 2017, the Defendant and Cohen met to formalize this arrangement.

From February 2017 through December 2017, Cohen submitted invoices to the Trump Organization as per the agreement with Defendant. This included eleven invoices that were addressed to Weisselberg. The invoices were assigned a general ledger code and entered into the Trump Organization's detail general ledger. Checks were then generated and sent to Cohen. The first check, which was signed by Weisselberg and Eric Trump, and the second check, which was signed by Weisselberg and Donald Trump Jr., were paid from the Trump Revocable Trust. The remaining nine checks were signed by the Defendant and paid from his personal bank account."

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20 pp. 2 and 4.

Trump admitted to reimbursing Cohen for the Daniels payment all the way back in May, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment

@averagejoe1 said
Mott, ask Marauder this, he seems to have really researched the ins-and-outs, the reasoning the Trump trial(s).
What reasoning was applied to the Mayorkas case , to dismiss the impeachment trial, when he had been proven to have committed a felony in lying to Congress?

None of your or Mott's false "whataboutisms" have any relevance to the issues in Trump's NY trial. The Judge has already denied a motion to dismiss the indictment based on "selective prosecution" stating:

"The Defendant has not overcome the presumption, that the People's prosecution of this matter was undertaken in good faith and without discrimination." https://casetext.com/case/people-v-trump-20 p. 23

In fact, the charge is a fairly common one in NY: "the People note that their Office has brought "approximately 437 cases charging violations of PL § 175.10." p. 22. That's just in one county albeit New York which is basically Manhattan.

@moonbus said
@no1marauder

And that happened after he was sworn into office?

I gave the dates and the link to the indictment on the previous page.

Yes, the false business records were all generated after Trump's inauguration in January 2017.

@moonbus said
Weren't the hush money payments made during the campaign, in 2016, before he was in the WH?

Yes, but he's not charged with making the payment but for falsifying records regarding the reimbursement to Cohen for making the payment.

@moonbus said
@no1marauder


On topic: are people convicted of falsifying financial records of this magnitude sometimes imprisoned, or are fines the usual sentence ?

There's a table in this article covering dozens of recent cases where people were charged with violations of NY Penal Law sec. 175.10. https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-felony-prosecutions-for-falsifying-business-records/

Many pled guilty to lesser charges, others had multiple convictions of other sections of the Penal Law. The closest case to this one I can find is here: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-fourth-department/2021/666-ka-17-00689.html where defendant was convicted of three counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree only after trial but his sentence isn't mentioned.

@moonbus said
The alleged crimes were committed before he assumed office. The court cases were put on hold while he was in office because a sitting president cannot be indicted. He would have been prosecuted whether or not he had ever held office. Ergo, not politically motivated. Of course, his political opponents are pleased that he is finally being prosecuted, but is not the motivation of DoJ.

Actually, they were committed while he was in office from February 14, 2017 to December 5, 2017. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictment-34-felony-counts-charges-new-york-read/

This case is being prosecuted by the County of New York DA, not the DOJ.

@averagejoe1 said
I dearest that the conservatives on this forum are not parenting any talking heads about the state of the world today, it is right before our eyes, and we are certainly forming our own opinions. I do not have to be told by any one what hell is being rained down upon us by the Biden administration. Every day it is something new. All of which encroach on our freedom, our de ...[text shortened]... even something that we can discuss. So here again, why parrot anybody. It is right before our eyes.

Again, these demented ravings have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you don't want to discuss the issues regarding Trump's criminal trial in NYC, please refrain from posting here.

@mott-the-hoople said
corrupt democrats abusing the justice system to interfere in the upcoming election…

do you think you are fooling anyone?

No matter how many times you parrot the right wing propaganda you have been spoon fed, I see you don't want to discuss the actual facts and law of the case.

It's not hard to figure out why.

If the name of the CEO who did these acts was Gates or Zuckerberg, you'd be singing a different tune.

@averagejoe1 said
Sorry. But a simple question, for you. Do you think the chargfes against Trump are politically motivated, or, NOT politically motivated?

I think any CEO of a corporation who falsely filed paperwork claiming reimbursement for a hush money payment was a legitimate business cost i.e."legal expenses" and was caught doing so would be prosecuted in NY.

If anything, politics delayed the charges.