You seem angry.

LOL. Delete to deflect. Haha

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:

1) Cuomo tolled the statute of limitations for a period of time during Covid. Here is an article discussing that.
https://natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tolling-new-york-statutes-limitation-has-ended-what-did-it

2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

dajo9 said:

---

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:

1) Cuomo tolled the statute of limitations for a period of time during Covid. Here is an article discussing that.
https://natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tolling-new-york-statutes-limitation-has-ended-what-did-it

2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

---

Thank you for the link. I finally found something...here's the indictment: https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

Notice the latest alleged crime occurred in December 2017. My recollection is these misdemeanor have a 2 year SOL, meaning the deadline to charge was December 2019. Cuomo's 1st Ex Order was signed in March 2020. It appears to me the SOL ran out and is unaffected by Cuomo's Ex Order.

dajo9 said:

---

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:
2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

---

This one is interesting.

here is a NY lawyer's website explaining the provision: https://www.sellonilaw.com/criminal-procedure/statute-of-limitations/

CPL Section 30.10(4) provides that when 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.

Notice the bolded word.

Here's a 2017 article stating that Trump was in NY for at least 24 days (most likely nights) during the 1st year of his presidency: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/how-much-time-trump-spending-trump-properties-n753366

This strikes me as a provision where some attorneys are going to make money arguing. Also, I really wish I could find pleadings for this criminal case because I cannot imagine this issue wasn't raised in pre-trial motions. There has to be case law on point and the judge should have referenced it in issuing his decisions.

Pretty cool that you now want him to get off on whatever technicalities you may find.
There is no argument of his innocence.

We ALL KNOW that he:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married.
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election.
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating.
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered.
He did not testify, AGAIN.
Is a liar scumbag whose body will rot and disintegrate upon his death. At 77 years old, his end is coming. Yipee!

dajo9 said:

---

The pro-prosecution argument on statute of limitations is twofold:

2) New York law allows for tolling when a person is out of state, which Trump was.

I have no doubt this will be further argued on appeal if necessary.

---

A little internet sleuthing confirms this could be a money maker for attorneys...

There is a particular case that interprets the statute: People v Knoppel. Defendant claimed the timeline didn't toll because he intermittently returned to the state. Here are the money lines:

"The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v Seda, 93 NY2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations."

Trump lawyers would focus on the 1st bolded sentence - he was arguably the easiest defendant to find and apprehend ever.

Prosecutors would rely on the totality of the holding and especially that last bolded line.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Prosecutors would rely on the totality of the holding and especially that last bolded line.

---

Yeah, it's typically the "totality of the holding" that matters. You know what the rest is called.

WalterSobchak said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Prosecutors would rely on the totality of the holding and especially that last bolded line.

---

Yeah, it's typically the "totality of the holding" that matters. You know what the rest is called.

---

Of course. But this is a little unique with the one sentence holding having an explicit preceding sentence giving a particular justification that is uniquely beneficial to this defendant.

Ok I found the case. It's Knobel not Knoppel. People v. Knobel, 94 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. 1999). The facts are pretty analogous IMHO. As you say it clearly establishes that "continuous" doesn't mean "entirely" or "exclusively." It is also clear that in both cases the issue was delay linking the defendant to the crime, not locating and serving the defendant after this link had been established. I also think the key word in the passage you quoted is "thus" which links the two sentences rather than leaving open any reasonable interpretation that there's a separate standard where the defendant's whereabouts are known. Again, the issue in both is the facts linking the defendant to the underlying crime coming to light. There is no viable SOL issue for Trump based on this precedent.

Holding:

Quote:

---

We conclude that because defendant, a nonresident, remained, during legally significant periods of time, continuously outside the State within the meaning of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the instant prosecution was timely commenced, and the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

---

Relevant Dicta:

Quote:

---

The People urge that the indictment was proper because the Statute of Limitations was tolled during all periods defendant was "continuously outside" the State. For an absence from the State to be "continuous" within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the People argue, it need not be a single uninterrupted period of time. We agree. The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v. Seda, 93 N.Y.2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations.

---

Analogous Facts:

Quote:

---

During the fall of 1995, defendant's wife returned to New York to reside, while defendant remained in Virginia. The couple was divorced the following year. In November 1997, following a child custody determination, defendant's ex-wife contacted the police and furnished evidence linking defendant to the unsolved 1988 crime. Based upon the information she and others provided, defendant was indicted, on February 24, 1998, for criminal mischief in the first degree (Penal Law 145.12) and arson in the third degree (Penal Law 150.10), a class B and C felony respectively.

---

Quote:

---

At a hearing, [defendant] maintained that between 1992 and 1997, he frequently returned to New York for business and personal reasons, including a child custody arrangement and visits with his parents. Defendant presented evidence that he had been in New York on 114 specific days between 1992 and 1997.

---

Quote:

---

It is undisputed that the People did not commence their prosecution of defendant until roughly a decade after the criminal incident, far exceeding the five years allowed them under the Criminal Procedure Law (see, CPL 30.10(b)). Thus, unless the People can establish that at least a part of that period was tolled, prosecution of this case is time-barred.

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Ok I found the case. It's Knobel not Knoppel. People v. Knobel, 94 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. 1999). The facts are pretty analogous IMHO. As you say it clearly establishes that "continuous" doesn't mean "entirely" or "exclusively." It is also clear that in both cases the issue was delay linking the defendant to the crime, not locating and serving the defendant after this link had been established. I also think the key word in the passage you quoted is "thus" which links the two sentences rather than leaving open any reasonable interpretation that there's a separate standard where the defendant's whereabouts are known. Again, the issue in both is the facts linking the defendant to the underlying crime coming to light. There is no viable SOL issue for Trump based on this precedent.

Holding:

Quote:

---

We conclude that because defendant, a nonresident, remained, during legally significant periods of time, continuously outside the State within the meaning of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the instant prosecution was timely commenced, and the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

---

Relevant Dicta:

Quote:

---

The People urge that the indictment was proper because the Statute of Limitations was tolled during all periods defendant was "continuously outside" the State. For an absence from the State to be "continuous" within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the People argue, it need not be a single uninterrupted period of time. We agree. The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v. Seda, 93 N.Y.2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations.

---

Analogous Facts:

Quote:

---

During the fall of 1995, defendant's wife returned to New York to reside, while defendant remained in Virginia. The couple was divorced the following year. In November 1997, following a child custody determination, defendant's ex-wife contacted the police and furnished evidence linking defendant to the unsolved 1988 crime. Based upon the information she and others provided, defendant was indicted, on February 24, 1998, for criminal mischief in the first degree (Penal Law 145.12) and arson in the third degree (Penal Law 150.10), a class B and C felony respectively.

---

Quote:

---

At a hearing, [defendant] maintained that between 1992 and 1997, he frequently returned to New York for business and personal reasons, including a child custody arrangement and visits with his parents. Defendant presented evidence that he had been in New York on 114 specific days between 1992 and 1997.

---

Quote:

---

It is undisputed that the People did not commence their prosecution of defendant until roughly a decade after the criminal incident, far exceeding the five years allowed them under the Criminal Procedure Law (see, CPL 30.10(b)). Thus, unless the People can establish that at least a part of that period was tolled, prosecution of this case is time-barred.

---

---

That's a lot of words. Here's my take - a Republican appointed judge will side with Trump and a Democratic appointed judge will rule against him.

Thankfully it's actually a very succinct and straightforward opinion compared to most.

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Pretty cool that you now want him to get off on whatever technicalities you may find.
There is no argument of his innocence.

We ALL KNOW that he:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married.
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election.
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating.
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered.
He did not testify, AGAIN.
Is a liar scumbag whose body will rot and disintegrate upon his death. At 77 years old, his end is coming. Yipee!

---

See my sentence saying this is not about Trump.

I do not believe in the concept of "technicalities." All valid laws matter. "Technicalities" are what one side calls any law that is inconvenient to their core beliefs (that is a general observation, not a statement direct especially at you).

We are discussing criminal acts, not just being a vile and disgusting person. Your list:

Porked both Stormy and Karen. While married. NOT CRIMINAL
Paid both off in order to silence them for the election. IGNORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE - HIDING IT FROM HIS WIFE; NOT CRIMINAL
Contracted Red Finch to skew results of an online poll to favor him. Cheating. NOT CRIMINAL
Wanted to hide all of this by distancing himself personally from it. He paid double to disguise is as legal services by Cohen rather than repayment for services rendered. THE CRIMINALITY OF THESE ACTS IS IN QUESTION.
He did not testify THIS IS A SACRED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

---

What about an Insurrection rally at the Capitol. Is that against the law?
Not that he's on trial for that, or for porking hookers. I just wanna know what you think.
Have you ever had sex with a playboy bunny, a porn star, or a hooker? He offered to pay, so he thought she was.
I just wanna know who I'm talking to.

Tell us again how you don't actually like Trump?

By the way, I spelled out reasons I thought he was guilty ad nauseam yesterday. My above statement about "we know he porked.... etc etc etc" was just me pointing out what we all know - it was not my reason for finding him guilty, lest you think it was.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Thankfully it's actually a very succinct and straightforward opinion compared to most.

---

In legalspeak, it may be a succinct and straightforward opinion. But I can do it one better:

Trump sucks!

blungld said:

---

They parse words, deny reality, search for loopholes all in defense of crimes they know were committed by their Dear Leader, but in heartbeat they will shout lock her up to person they know who has not actually committed a prisonable crime. It's a cult.

---

I agree that Lauren Boebert's theater actions, while gross and repulsive, are not prisonable crimes.

Let's talk Jury:

7 men, 5 women

1. Male, salesman
2. Male, investment banker
3. Male, attorney
4. Male, security engineer
5. Woman, teacher
6. Woman, software engineer
7. Male, attorney
8. Male, former wealth manager
9. Woman, speech therapist
10. Male, works in commerce
11. Woman, product development manager
12. Woman, physical therapist

2020 NYC results

New York City's long-awaited election results were finally certified Tuesday, four weeks after polls closed and just past the state's statutory deadline, making the five boroughs one of the last jurisdictions in the country to finalize the 2020 count.

Overall in New York City,
Biden received 2,321,759 votes, 76%, to
Trump's 691,682 votes, or 23%; a margin of 1,630,077.

In 2016,
Hillary Clinton 79% won of the vote to Trump's 18%.


Biden won the state of New York by a 60%-38% margin; compared to Clinton's 58.8%-37.5% win in 2016, meaning that while Biden did worse than Clinton in the five boroughs he outperformed her outside the city.

concordtom said:

---

2020 NYC results

New York City's long-awaited election results were finally certified Tuesday, four weeks after polls closed and just past the state's statutory deadline, making the five boroughs one of the last jurisdictions in the country to finalize the 2020 count.

Overall in New York City,
Biden received 2,321,759 votes, 76%, to
Trump's 691,682 votes, or 23%; a margin of 1,630,077.

In 2016,
Hillary Clinton 79% won of the vote to Trump's 18%.


Biden won the state of New York by a 60%-38% margin; compared to Clinton's 58.8%-37.5% win in 2016, meaning that while Biden did worse than Clinton in the five boroughs he outperformed her outside the city.

---

While NYC is definitely hostile to Trump, as also evidenced by the lengths they went through for the E. Jean Carroll civil suit, the facts here do not support a criminal conviction.

Here's what we know about the jury in the Trump trial. Jurors #2 and #4 replaced the two earlier jurors:

Juror #1

Juror #1 is a man originally from Ireland who now lives in New York and works in sales. He was assigned by the judge to be foreperson. He enjoys the outdoors and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, Fox News and MSNBC.

Juror #2

Juror #2 is a man who works in investment banking and lives with his wife in New York. He said he follows Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness in the case, on social media, as well as Trump's Truth Social posts. He said he pays attention to "anything that might be able to move the markets I need to know about."

Juror #3

Juror #3 is a corporate lawyer originally from Oregon. He said he likes to go hiking, and gets his news from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Google. He said he was "not super familiar with the other charges" that Trump faces and doesn't "follow the news that closely."

Juror #4

Juror #4 is a security engineer who said he spends most of his spare time with his children. He said he gets his news from a variety of outlets and is not on social media.

Juror #5

The fifth juror is a teacher who said she is not very interested in politics or the news, which she gets from The New York Times and TikTok. While her friends have strong opinions about Trump, she said she does not. She offered this opinion under questioning from one of Trump's lawyers: "President Trump speaks his mind. I would rather that in a person than someone who's in office and you don't know what they're doing behind the scenes."

Juror #6

A software engineer, Juror #6 said she can treat Trump as she would any other person on trial. She reads The New York Times and uses TikTok.

Juror #7

A civil litigator, Juror #7 said he enjoys time outdoors with his children. He told the court he reads The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and The Washington Post. He likes the podcasts "Smartless" and "Car Talk."

Juror #8

The eighth juror is a retired wealth manager. He said he enjoys meditation and yoga, and gets his news from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC and CNBC.

Juror #9

Juror #9 is a woman originally from New Jersey and works as a speech therapist. She said she doesn't "watch any news or follow it too closely" and listens to podcasts about reality TV. She said she does get newsletters from The New York Times and CNN.

"I do not agree with a lot of his politics and his decisions as a president, but I have really taken the past two days to reflect and make sure that I could leave that at the door and be a totally impartial juror, and I feel like I can," she said in court.

Juror #10

The tenth juror is a man originally from Ohio who works in commerce. He said he enjoys the outdoors and animals. He said he could put aside his views about Trump and decide the case impartially.

"I don't have a strong opinion about Mr. Trump," he said. "For some things I am in favor, for [some] things I am not in favor."

Juror #11

Juror #11 is a woman originally from California. She works in product development. She said she thinks Trump "seems very selfish and self-serving, so I don't really appreciate that in any public servant." But she said that doesn't mean she can't be impartial.

"I don't have strong opinions about him, but I don't like his persona, how he presents himself in public. I don't really agree with some of his politics, but that does not mean I can't be impartial," she told the court. "I don't like some of my co-workers, but I am not going to but I can hear him out and understand his point of view and understand his issues."

Juror #12

Juror #12 is a woman who works as a physical therapist. She said she listens to sports and faith-related podcasts, and gets her news from The New York Times, USA Today and CNN.

"As an eligible voter I feel it is my responsibility in regard to elections to establish an educated decision so that I can vote. In regards to this court case and the defendant in the room, I have no opinions until I am presented the information in the courtroom," she said in court.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-trial-jurors-new-york-hush-money/

I'm really surprised that Team Trump didn't start picking off jurors in an effort to deduct 7 and get to 11, and this a mistrial.

Certainly a big part of their job is to investigate all 18 to a huge degree, and I'm certain they'd be able to follow them home and bug their residences as in a compelling spy film. If they didn't, I'd be shocked.

It makes me think they feel they've got at least 1 on their side.

Nonetheless, here are the 6 alternates, which won't be used.


Alternate #1

The first alternate is a woman who grew up overseas and works as a financial analyst. She said she gets her news from The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

"I have opinions about [Trump] the same way I have opinions about most things. I don't have any personal opinions about him, none that I feel would impact my ability to be impartial," she said.


Alternate #2

Alternate #2 is a woman from Spain who is not currently working and said she "[doesn't] believe in watching news." She added that she doesn't have a strong opinion of Trump, and said "nothing is going to influence my decision" if selected to serve.

Alternate #3

The third alternate is a man who works in IT as an audio professional. He joked that he could help if there were issues with the microphones.

He also said he doesn't have a strong opinion about Trump, and that "there should be consequences" if someone is guilty of a crime.

Alternate #4

Alternate #4 works as a contract specialist. She said she is "not a big news person" and relies on the New York Times, Reuters, the BBC, Facebook and Instagram. "I have no really strong opinions about President Trump," she told the court.

Alternate #5

The fifth alternate is a woman originally from Texas. She said she works at a clothing company and gets her news from the New York Times and Google.


Alternate #6

Alternate #6 is a woman who works for a construction company. She says she spends most of her free time with her children and reads the New York Times and watches NY1.

Let's hear some handicapping of the individual jurists.

I was at first concerned #8, former wealth manager, could be pro-Trump. Until I saw he's into meditation and yoga.

#12 spends her time on religious podcasts. This could be bad for prosecutors. The religious right is mostly a bunch of brain washers - not evidence based people. But! Maybe she said that's where she gets her news as a fake to get on the jury. One never knows if these descriptions are accurate, and they certainly are not complete descriptions.

Then again, she's a religious woman who had to listen to the busty porn star's bedroom talk, which will disgust her as she looks down upon the Orange Fat Frock sitting there in shamed judgment.

#9/10/11 sound ready to convict.

#7, civil litigator. Wow. This is his scene!!
If he's a Trumpist, he'll find a technicality.
If he's against Trump, he could convince fence sitters why conviction is merited.

#6, convict.

#5, convict. "President Trump speaks his mind. I would rather that in a person than someone who's in office and you don't know what they're doing behind the scenes."
Trump didn't testify. She won't like that!

#4, security engineer.
What the hell is that?
He could be an uneducated male macho body guard meatloaf, or a smart tech educated fellow.
I'm shading this guy.

#3 corporate lawyer from Oregon who likes to hike. Hmmm. Another strong jurist for this case. Convict.

#2, investment banker who listens to Cohen? That's a conviction. You don't listen to Cohen unless you hate trump.

#1, from Ireland.
Foreigners hate trump! Convict!

This level of analysis is unnecessary. Trump cannot get a fair trial in that jurisdiction. He will be convicted.

I like that Trump seems to have selected a new shade of hair coloring that is less orange. Or is it that he has stayed away from the bronzer creams and decided to tan under the cancer lights for a more natural appearance?

blungld said:

---

They parse words, deny reality, search for loopholes all in defense of crimes they know were committed by their Dear Leader, but in heartbeat they will shout lock her up to person they know who has not actually committed a prisonable crime. It's a cult.

---

Biden and Garland gave the green light to shoot and kill anyone stopping their servants from looking through Melania's underwear. LOL.

AunBear89 said:

---

Wow. The lying liars are lying in overdrive now. You righteous righties are the biggest morons and/or liars. You either believe everything your bubble tells you, or you know it's crap but repeat it anyway because you are moral bankrupt.

---

stay mad.

Here is the use of deadly force instructions attached to the FBI's operational instructions.

Head of Washington FBI field office when this was executed: Steven D'Antuono.

Recall who authorized the raid: Merrick Garland

The FBI risked the lives of Donald Trump, his family, his… pic.twitter.com/XHHLDYqWgV

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) May 21, 2024

concordtom said:

---

Yipee!

---

Prosecution Offers Michael Cohen $130,000 Hush Money To Stop Talking https://t.co/AibNoybq4m pic.twitter.com/42UCYINJZi

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) May 22, 2024

"J6 conspiracy theorist, insurrection denier" Your kinda gal BF. LOL

WalterSobchak said:

---

"J6 conspiracy theorist, insurrection denier" Your kinda gal BF. LOL

---

Between Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, John Bolton and Bill Kristol, your cult ends up choosing some rather bizarre and twisted heroes.

bear2034 said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

"J6 conspiracy theorist, insurrection denier" Your kinda gal BF. LOL

---

Between Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, John Bolton and Bill Kristol, your cult ends up choosing some rather bizarre and twisted heroes.

---

Yeah, our heroes. You got us. LOL

WalterSobchak said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

"J6 conspiracy theorist, insurrection denier" Your kinda gal BF. LOL

---

Between Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, John Bolton and Bill Kristol, your cult ends up choosing some rather bizarre and twisted heroes.

---

Yeah, our heroes. You got us. LOL

---

This will always remain one of the world's greatest video montages for showing what the liberal sector of corporate media is: pic.twitter.com/PWKDJoT8bc

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 20, 2024

Especially Avenatti. You guys worshiped him and made Biden jealous.