• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Final jurors seated for Trump’s hush money case, with opening statements set for Monday

SuperDS77 said:
Is there a statute of limitations on this?

Curious as to why previous guy (Vance) did not pursue.
Click to expand...
It's at TRIAL now. What do you think the answer is to your question? I mean, honestly, do you think the Trump lawyer is going to say - there is a statute of limitations, and then Judge Merchan is going to say, "you know you're right. No one thought to ask before."

It's AT trial. What is the defense arguing?
 
WorldWatcher said:
Correct, which means at least 10 of the jurors are on the panel because FPOTUS#45's attorney approved them.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, new math. Nonsense, 9 out of 10 jurors are likely Biden voters. This so-called case was brought with that in mind.
WorldWatcher said:
And yet the prosecution also exercised all 10 of the preemptory challenges.
Click to expand...
Your point being what?
WorldWatcher said:
There is no gag order on FPOTUS#45 as a Presidential Candidate.

There is a gag order against a crimininal defendant ONLY to the point of talking about witnesses, jurors, court staff and family members. He is free to talk about the judge and the process..
Click to expand...
The prosecution and witnesses have unfettered ability to try the case in the media while Trump is gagged. Now we see the prosecution attempting to use the gag orders as a weapon.

WorldWatcher said:
The judge isn't "forcing him", New York State law is the requirement for him to be present.

Did you now that FPOTUS#45 can submit a filing under New York State law not to be present while the court proceeds, but has to waive his right to appeal on the issue of not being present. FPOTUS#45 has not submitted such a request. (No whether it would be approved is a different question.)

WW
Click to expand...
So, Trump's right to appeal is held hostage to his ability to campaign. That's what passes for the rule of law in Biden's America.
 
Athanasius68 said:
So-- still need to say what was the unlawful influence.
And that would be federal campaign finance law.
Which I am sure the judge understands, or should understand, that Bragg has no authority over which to prosecute.
Click to expand...

In your world, if an immigrant somehow falsifies a state id to show that he is a US citizen, he cannot be prosecuted in the state because immigration laws are fed's territory.

You also seem to believe that state laws have nothing to do with federal election contributions. This is wrong. Federal election laws may preempt state election laws but does not mean that states do not have their own laws related to federal campaign contributions.
For example
 
ClaraD said:
The defense exhausted them and you realize they don’t have to say why so maybe they were striking jurors based on race?
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence for the accusation of racism? Oh wait, you have none.
 
pamak said:
This is an unreasonable reading because the quote clearly reveals that the expense would not exist absent the campaign.
Click to expand...

Shrug. The FEC has the authority to make the decision.
They decided otherwise.
pamak said:
And again, this is about the NY law of falsifying business documents to hide illegal activity, and sorry but absent of charge at the federal level does not mean that states cannot enforce their own laws. You can see this in cases like weed where federal officials tell us that they will not enforce a federal law related to marijuana prohibition laws but this does not mean that states can not enforce their own laws regarding.
Click to expand...

With intent to defraud.
What's the fraud?
Federal election campaign finance law violations.
Which was never charged
 
AZRWinger said:
Where is the evidence for the accusation of racism? Oh wait, you have none.
Click to expand...
Do you not understand the 'maybe' in my post? It is to make a point that they don't need a reason, it can be any reason, including based on race...the strikes belong to them regardless of reason.
 
SuperDS77 said:
Is there a statute of limitations on this?
Click to expand...

Yes about 10 years (5 years felony + 5 years tolling suspension).

Since the charges stem from 2017, then the SOL would be 2027.

WW
 
Athanasius68 said:
The expense would have existed because she is claiming they had a tryst.
And wanted money for silence.
Click to expand...

1714057133153.png

They werre trying to stiff her (pun intended) to not have the expense so not, the expense existed only because of the campaign.

Athanasius68 said:
And again, if you wish to argue that Trump should have paid her off using campaign funds, that expenditure would not have had to be disclosed until 2017.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I've never said they should have used campaign funds nor did use campaign funds coming from campiagn accounts.

Athanasius68 said:
And there is no law mandating that candidates must divulge all negative information about themselves.
Click to expand...

Never said their was.

He's not charged with not allowing negative information, he's charged with falsification of business records to hide the suppression.

Athanasius68 said:
So-- there was no legal requirement fot Trump to divulge about Clifford.
Click to expand...

As a candidate, actually there is.

He was required to report it to the campaign for FEC filings.

WW
 
Athanasius68 said:
It is.
There is no law against lying.
Click to expand...

Except that there is a law in NY against "lying" in your business records.

And if you do so for the purpose of making your records inaccurate and unable to be trusted as accurate for *whomever* might review them for any reason --- i.e., fraudulent intent -- including, but not limited to decieving your auditors, other owners of the business, your wife in a divorce case, or anyone else who may have reason or cause to examine your books, etc. - that is a violation of NY Penal Law 175.05.

AND if you violate 175.05 with the intent to commit or aid in committing or commit another crime --- such as conspiracy to influence and election unlawfully - as in NY Election Law 17-152 - that's a felony.
 
Last edited:
WorldWatcher said:
Yes about 10 years (5 years felony + 5 years tolling suspension).

Since the charges stem from 2017, then the SOL would be 2027.

WW
Click to expand...
So this is "STATE law regarding the falsification of state business records" in the first degree because of the intent to commit a separate crime? Ostensibly the separate crime is an election funding violation?

Is the misdemeanor version of this law a lesser statute of limitations?
 
pamak said:
In your world, if an immigrant somehow falsifies a state id to show that he is a US citizen, he cannot be prosecuted in the state because immigration laws are fed's territory.
Click to expand...

No. Because he breaking a state law.
pamak said:
You also seem to believe that state laws have nothing to do with federal election contributions. This is wrong. Federal election laws may preempt state election laws but does not mean that states do not have their own laws related to federal campaign contributions.
For example
Click to expand...

They do.
However Mr. Bragg is trying to figure out a way to prosecute Mr. Trump for violating federal finance election law.
 
Rumblefish said:
Except that there is a law in NY against "lying" in your business records.
Click to expand...

Yes-- and since the Trump Organization is a private organization, it's the functional equivalent of lying to his checkbook.
Rumblefish said:
And if you do so for the purpose of making your records inaccurate and unable to be trusted as accurate for *whomever* might review them for any reason --- i.e., fraudulent intent -- including, but not limited to decieve your auditors, other owners, your wife in a divorce case, or anyone else who may have reason or cause to examine your books, etc. - that is a violation of NY Penal Law 175.05.
Click to expand...

Yes-- a fraudulent intent.
To commit fraud on somebody.
Rumblefish said:
AND if you violate 175.05 with the intent to commit or aid in committing or commit another crime --- such as conspiracy to influence and election unlawfully - as in NY Election Law 17-152 - that's a felony.
Click to expand...

And now we are back to asking what is the 'unlawful' action as required in 17-152.
 
SuperDS77 said:
So this is "STATE law regarding the falsification of state business records" in the first degree because of the intent to commit a separate crime? Ostensibly the separate crime is an election funding violation?

Is the misdemeanor version of this law a lesser statute of limitations?
Click to expand...

2 years
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yes-- and since the Trump Organization is a private organization, it's the functional equivalent of lying to his checkbook.


Yes-- a fraudulent intent.
To commit fraud on somebody.


And now we are back to asking what is the 'unlawful' action as required in 17-152.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't lying to his checkbook....his company is regulated under NY business law...private businesses are regulated under state law...but you knew that.
 
WorldWatcher said:
View attachment 67506354

They werre trying to stiff her (pun intended) to not have the expense so not, the expense existed only because of the campaign.
Click to expand...

No. Because Ms. Clifford leveraged the campaign.
In any event, it's an issue for the feds.
Not Bragg.
WorldWatcher said:
No I'm not. I've never said they should have used campaign funds nor did use campaign funds coming from campiagn accounts.
Click to expand...

Then you stuck.
NDA's are lawful.
WorldWatcher said:
He's not charged with not allowing negative information, he's charged with falsification of business records to hide the suppression.
Click to expand...

There is no law requiring that a candidate for office divulge personal negative information.
WorldWatcher said:
As a candidate, actually there is.
Click to expand...

WorldWatcher said:
He was required to report it to the campaign for FEC filings.

WW
Click to expand...

He wasn't. But even if he was, the report would not have been published until 2017.

So - no fraud.
 
SuperDS77 said:
So this is "STATE law regarding the falsification of state business records" in the first degree because of the intent to commit a separate crime? Ostensibly the separate crime is an election funding violation?

Is the misdemeanor version of this law a lesser statute of limitations?
Click to expand...

Misdemeanor SOL is shorter.

The felony version is up to 10 years as mentioned above.


WW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom