djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2023 18:03:47 GMT -5
Georgia State University law professor Clark D. Cunningham didn’t necessarily see it that way, though, saying, “In terms of potential charges, I don’t think it was necessary for them to make that finding.”
i don't think he was thinking of the perjury charges when he said this.
in terms of the perjury charges, this finding IS essential, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2023 18:04:45 GMT -5
Also from WaPo. Proud Boys move to subpoena Trump in seditious conspiracy trial
Some of the Proud Boys have argued that the former president should be on trial, not them Leaders in the far-right Proud Boys group, accused in federal court of plotting to use violence to keep Donald Trump in power, are asking the Justice Department to help them force the former president to testify. “At all times relevant, Trump was president of the United States, and it’s the government’s obligation to produce him,” attorney Norm Pattis said in court Thursday. His client, Joseph Biggs, is one of five defendants accused of engaging in a seditious conspiracy to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Pattis did not explain what defendants hope to learn from Trump, only that he was joined in the subpoena effort by attorneys for co-defendant Dominic Pezzola. He said he needed help from the government to serve a subpoena on Trump because the U.S. Secret Service continues to protect the former president. In opening statements last month, an attorney for longtime Proud Boys Chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio argued that the former president was the one responsible for the deadly riot. Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. In a debate with presidential candidate Joe Biden in September 2020, Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” In an encrypted chat from after the election, produced in court, Tarrio told a top deputy that the Trump campaign wanted them to keep showing up at rallies but not wear “colors” identifying themselves as Proud Boys. “President Trump told these people that the election was stolen,” defense attorney Sabino Jauregui told jurors. “Trump told them to go there on January 6th, and it was Trump who in his speech on January 6th unleashed that mob over there at the Capitol.” The former president wasn’t on trial, Jauregui said, because “it’s too hard to blame Trump, it’s too hard to put him on the witness stand with his army of lawyers.” The subpoena effort is almost certain to fail. Duke University law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, who studies constitutional criminal procedure, noted that the defendants face multiple obstacles to putting Trump on the stand. “We’re not going to be seeing testimony from the former president,” Griffin said. Judge Timothy J. Kelly would have to rule Trump’s testimony admissible at trial. Judge Reggie B. Walton, in a different Jan. 6 criminal case in which the defendant sought to put Trump on the stand, ruled last year that the former president’s intent was “irrelevant” to how an individual supporter responded. “The probative value of such testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury,” Walton wrote. Unlike most other Jan. 6 defendants, the Proud Boys did have connections to people close to Trump. But they would still have to explain to the court “why they believe there are potential pieces of information that could emerge from the presidential testimony that would make a difference to their case,” Griffin said. “That seems to me far-fetched.” Should Kelly allow the testimony, itself unlikely, Trump could claim executive privilege over any conversations he had while president. If that failed, Trump could assert his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, given that he is also under investigation for his actions around Jan. 6. When Trump was subpoenaed last year by lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6 attack, he fought the demand on separation of powers grounds; it was dropped when the House special committee disbanded after Democrats lost their House majority. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III decided not to subpoena Trump in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, instead accepting documents and written responses from the president. Other federal judges in Washington have ruled that defendants could not defend themselves by arguing that Trump authorized their actions on Jan. 6. That “would require this Court to accept that the President may prospectively shield whomever he pleases from prosecution simply by advising them that their conduct is lawful,” Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled in one case. Proud Boys move to subpoena Trump in seditious conspiracy trialthe fact that they consider him a fact witness is quite interesting, imo.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,392
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 26, 2023 11:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,392
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 9, 2023 18:43:49 GMT -5
NYT article. Prosecutors Signal Criminal Charges for Trump Are LikelyThe former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow. The Manhattan district attorney’s office recently signaled to Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that he could face criminal charges for his role in the payment of hush money to a porn star, the strongest indication yet that prosecutors are nearing an indictment of the former president, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. The prosecutors offered Mr. Trump the chance to testify next week before the grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the potential case, the people said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him. In New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in the grand jury before they are indicted, but they rarely testify, and Mr. Trump is likely to decline the offer. His lawyers could also meet privately with the prosecutors in hopes of fending off criminal charges. Any case would mark the first indictment of a former American president, and could upend the 2024 presidential race. It would also elevate Mr. Bragg to the national stage, though not without risk. Mr. Trump has faced an array of criminal investigations and special counsel inquiries over the years but has never been charged with a crime, underscoring the gravity of Mr. Bragg’s inquiry. Mr. Bragg could become the first prosecutor to charge Mr. Trump, but he might not be the last. In Georgia, the Fulton County District Attorney is investigating whether Mr. Trump interfered in the 2020 election, and at the federal level, a special counsel is scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the election results, as well as his handling of classified documents. The Manhattan inquiry, which has spanned nearly five years, centers on a $130,000 payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was made by Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, who was later reimbursed by Mr. Trump from the White House. Mr. Cohen is expected to testify in front of the grand jury, but has not yet done so. The district attorney’s office has already questioned at least six other people before the grand jury, according to several other people with knowledge of the inquiry. Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have not finished the grand jury presentation and he could still decide against seeking an indictment. Mr. Trump has previously said that the prosecutors are engaged in a “witch hunt” against him that began before he became president, and has called Mr. Bragg, a Democrat who is Black, a politically motivated “racist.” A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment. Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison will be challenging. The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are also sure to attack Mr. Cohen, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money. The $130,000 payout came during the final stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Ms. Daniels’s representatives contacted the National Enquirer to offer exclusive rights to her story about an affair with Mr. Trump. David Pecker, the tabloid’s publisher and a longtime ally of Mr. Trump, had agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about him during the 2016 campaign, and at one point even agreed to buy the story of another woman’s affair with Mr. Trump and never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.” But Mr. Pecker didn’t bite at Ms. Daniels’s story. Instead, he and the tabloid’s top editor, Dylan Howard, helped broker a separate deal between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels’s lawyer. Mr. Trump later reimbursed Mr. Cohen through monthly checks. In the federal case against Mr. Cohen, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed. In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy. Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor. This is not the first Manhattan grand jury to hear evidence about Mr. Trump. Before leaving office at the end of 2021, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., had directed prosecutors to begin presenting evidence to an earlier grand jury. That potential case focused on the former president’s business practices, in particular whether he fraudulently inflated his net worth by billions of dollars in order to secure favorable terms on loans and other benefits. But Mr. Bragg, soon after taking office last year, grew concerned about the strength of that case and halted the presentation, prompting two senior prosecutors leading the investigation to resign. Still, the portion of the investigation concerned with Mr. Trump’s net worth is continuing, people with knowledge of the matter said. Defendants rarely choose to testify before a grand jury and it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump would do so. As a potential defendant, he would have to waive immunity, meaning that his testimony could be used against him if he were charged. Although he could have a lawyer present in the grand jury to advise him, the lawyer would be prohibited from speaking to the jurors, and there would be few limits on the questions prosecutors could ask the former president. In recent years, Mr. Trump has been wary of answering questions under oath, given the legal intrigue swirling around him. When the New York attorney general deposed him last year in a civil case, Mr. Trump refused to provide any information, availing himself of his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions more than 400 times over the course of four hours. If he testifies about the hush money to this grand jury, he will not have that option. Prosecutors Signal Criminal Charges for Trump Are Likely
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 9, 2023 18:51:07 GMT -5
His lawyers could also meet privately with the prosecutors in hopes of fending off criminal charges. could? will.
this is an interesting case because it hinges on whether hush money is an in-kind donation. if it is, that would strengthen campaign law against crooks like Trump.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,868
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 9, 2023 19:54:18 GMT -5
Well, if he can’t plead the 5th, he won’t testify. No lawyer on earth would advise him to testify without that out.
So I guess we wait to see if he gets indicted. I wish these would hurry up.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 10, 2023 11:09:23 GMT -5
of course he won't. but you can put your money on his lawyers showing up to negotiate.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,392
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 14, 2023 8:39:00 GMT -5
Fearing indictment, Trump changes his story in hush money messFacing a possible indictment in a hush money scandal, Donald Trump changed his story — and then he changed it again. That’s not a great sign. As the prospect of an indictment grows, the Manhattan district attorney’s office invited Donald Trump to testify this week before a grand jury. Not surprisingly, the former president and his attorneys have declined the offer. NBC News reported: "Former president Donald Trump will not appear before the Manhattan grand jury probing a hush-money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina told NBC News on Monday. Trump’s legal team met with the former president in Florida over the weekend. Following the discussions, the president decided not to sit for a meeting with the grand jury in New York.This does not mean, however, that Team Trump is choosing total silence as prosecutors in local New York weigh whether to charge the Republican. On the contrary, the former president and his defense lawyers have added a provocative new word to their talking points. On Thursday night, after The New York Times reported that prosecutors were “nearing an indictment of the former president,” the Republican’s spokesperson issued a statement that said, among other things, “President Trump was the victim of extortion then, just as he is now.” Around the same time, Trump published a seven-part series of missives on his social media platform, pushing a similar line. “I did absolutely nothing wrong, I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels, nor would I have wanted to have an affair with Stormy Daniels,” he wrote, adding, “I relied on counsel in order to resolve this Extortion of me.” Much of this was familiar. In fact, in recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly emphasized that he did not actually have an extramarital affair with the porn star. The question of whether those denials are credible is of possible interest, but what strikes me as more important is why he has pushed the denials with such vigor. Common sense might suggest that Trump is denying the relationship because he’s still married to his third wife, who probably wouldn’t be pleased if he admitted to an affair. But in the context of the hush money scandal, it seems likely that there’s more to it, because of the circumstances surrounding the controversy: If Trump didn’t have an affair with Daniels, why in the world would he pay her $130,000 to keep quiet? And that’s where the new “extortion” talking point comes into play. Let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane. As regular readers might recall, the scandal broke in earnest back in early 2018, when The Wall Street Journal reported on Michael Cohen buying Daniels’ silence. Pressed for answers, Trump told reporters on the record in April 2018 that he knew nothing about the payment. When his denial proved to be false, the then-president changed his story, effectively conceding that he did know about the payment, but insisting at the time that he “never directed Michael Cohen to break the law.” (Trump also claimed that Cohen’s crimes “were not criminal,” though I still don’t know what that was supposed to mean.) A Washington Post report explained in December 2018: “The evolving strategy on the hush-money allegations is textbook Trump: Tell one version of events until it falls apart, then tell a new version, and so on — until the danger passes.” But as the danger refuses to pass, the former president and his team are now telling another version of events: Trump was “extorted.” In other words, we’re now supposed to discard the Republican’s earlier claims and instead believe a new version of events. At the height of the 2016 campaign, the new story goes, a prominent actress in the adult film industry let the GOP presidential campaign know that she intended to tell the public about an alleged affair. Trump could’ve alerted law enforcement and/or the public. But according to this new version of events, the then-candidate — who famously bragged that he never paid settlements, preferring to fight — instead directed his fixer to quietly make an illegal payoff. He did so, we’re now supposed to believe, not because Daniels was telling the truth about an affair, but because Trump was willing to pay off the porn star who was extorting him with a bogus claim about a nonexistent affair. All of which leaves me a bit confused. If Trump were “the victim of extortion,” why are we just now hearing about this new defense? Why not say something sooner? The payoff was in 2016; the story reached the public in 2018; and it took the former president until 2023 to make this rather specific claim, never having made it before? Fearing indictment, Trump changes his story in hush money mess
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,868
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 14, 2023 11:20:33 GMT -5
Another story on the Stormy Daniels lawsuit. www.salon.com/2023/03/14/lawyer-floats-melania-defense-in-stormy-daniels-case--and-claims-hes-the-real-victim/Trump is between a rock and a hard place. Falsely reporting the payment as a legal expense to Cohen is only a misdemeanor, but if they can prove Trump did it to try to cover a crime, it will be a felony. Initially I thought it would be hard to prove Trump was being extorted rather than trying to protect his political chances, but Cohen has audio tape of trump talking to him about paying off a former Playboy playmate McDougal where Trump says just that. Now I’m thinking he might be caught, for once in his life. That will be a shock.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,868
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 15, 2023 6:46:20 GMT -5
The Guardian has a story about federal prosecutors in NY doing a criminal investigation into whether Truth Social violated money laundering statues by accepting 8 million dollars with suspected Russian ties.
No doubt Trump will insist he had no idea where the money came from, but accepting 8 m from murky sources that eventually go back to a Putin relative may not play well in this election cycle, at least to everyone who isn’t a MAGA head.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,868
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 17, 2023 14:14:58 GMT -5
Can’t find it on my phone but Raw Story has a report about Trump failing to disclose nearly 300,000 in gifts, including a larger than life size painting of him. There’s a link over to the painting in the story- yikes.
It’s apparently hanging at Mar a Lago now, scaring the kids.
Of course they failed to disclose a bunch of gifts they kept - emoluments clause, megiluments clause, who cares. Not the guy who keeps top secret state documents where they store the lounge chairs and pool cleaner.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,868
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 20, 2023 8:41:06 GMT -5
In the Georgia case, there is a second audio tape of Trump pressuring another Georgia politician. www.salon.com/2023/03/16/jaw-dropping-experts-stunned-after-report-reveals-new-tape-of-pressuring-georgia-official/According to members of the grand jury, the testimony of Dominian employees and people who worked for the Georgia elections group was extremely compelling. They’ve indicated there’s a massive amount of incriminating information that will be released. Talking heads on TV this AM are speculating Fani Willis will go after Trump with a Ricco Act charge. Testimony will be released at the same time as the indictments come out. Should be interesting.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,868
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 20, 2023 10:51:41 GMT -5
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,342
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 20, 2023 22:59:36 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer. Just what is the Statue of Limitations on the crime Trump did on the payoff to that porn star? Is there a time limit? Ive read it has something to do with election funds or personal funds.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,392
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 20, 2023 23:25:40 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer. Just what is the Statue of Limitations on the crime Trump did on the payoff to that porn star? Is there a time limit? Ive read it has something to do with election funds or personal funds. Statute of limitations. Why do you research it yourself instead of others doing all your work for you.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,137
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 20, 2023 23:50:41 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer. Just what is the Statue of Limitations on the crime Trump did on the payoff to that porn star? Is there a time limit? Ive read it has something to do with election funds or personal funds. Statute of limitations. Why do you research it yourself instead of others doing all your work for you. He tried to, but all of his searches returned Statue of Liberty sites and pictures.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,342
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 21, 2023 0:20:30 GMT -5
I suppose we'll know tomorrow when or if trump gets arrested on State or Federal charges. Then I guess I can narrow down the statue of limitations.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,688
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 21, 2023 1:27:52 GMT -5
Statute of limitations. Why do you research it yourself instead of others doing all your work for you. He tried to, but all of his searches returned Statue of Liberty sites and pictures.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,392
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 21, 2023 8:26:55 GMT -5
Trump tried to make Stormy Daniels a punchline. Now she gets the last laugh.Trump has groped and jeered and drummed the beat of misogyny throughout his whole life, making Daniels’ potential triumph feel that much sweeter. Appearing on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" in October 2018, adult film star Stormy Daniels was asked to look at a lineup of mushrooms and pick the one that best resembled President Donald Trump’s penis. Daniels had become a household name overnight after it was revealed that a decade earlier, she’d had an alleged sexual relationship with Trump. And 21 months into his presidency, there she was promoting a book and talking about his junk. Despite the prestigious media appearances alongside her just-as-famous lawyer Michael Avenatti, Daniels was still something of a punchline: A woman derided for being openly sexual, demeaned for having an alleged affair with a married man, and paid $130,000 to keep quiet while that very man was running for president. And yet here we are five years later, after Cohen’s stint in prison, Avenatti currently serving time, Trump on the precipice of accountability, and Daniels the last woman left standing. Now she could very well be the reason a former president is indicted for the first time in American history. Daniels took to Twitter Sunday night to share her feelings about the man who has reportedly caused her so much pain potentially finally getting his comeuppance. “I only respond when he posts about me or talks about me on TV...and only a fraction of that,” she tweeted, likely in reference to Trump recently insulting her physical appearance. Daniels as a key player in Trump's historic potential indictment marks a shift in the years'-long narrative of Daniels’ alleged entanglement with the former president. It's a symbolic victory, at the very least, for the many women who have spoken out against Trump’s alleged bad behavior toward them. Though Daniels alleges that her affair with Trump (which he denies) took place way back in 2006, the bombshell dropped in January 2018 when lawyer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 hush money payment to her was made public for the first time. As the story goes, Cohen, a personal lawyer for Trump, caught wind of the fact that Daniels planned to go public with her story shortly before the 2016 election, paid her the sum and had her sign a nondisclosure agreement to keep quiet. It turns out Trump never signed the NDA, but did reimburse Cohen for the money. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office then opened an investigation into the shady dealings in 2018, but it wasn’t until this year that there was finally movement. Most recently, Trump was invited to testify in front of a grand jury investigating the payments made to Daniels, and suddenly things got really real, really quick. “I’m tired of being threatened,” Daniels told the hosts of "The View" in April 2018, of Trump and his various associates. “And intimidating me and trying to say that you’ll ruin my life and take all of my money and my house or whatever — I’m sorry, I’m done. I’m done being bullied.” She later wrote in her book, “Full Disclosure,” that that was the time the “death threats against me and my family started ratcheting up.” As absurd as it sounds on its face that an adult film star could be the one to bring down the president, it makes absolute sense when the president in question is Trump. The business mogul turned reality TV star turned once-ruler of the free world has had a most improbable career trajectory. And even when his multiple divorces, affairs, and allegations of sexual misconduct and assault took center stage in his 2016 campaign, voters still looked at him and said that’s my guy. Even the infamous Access Hollywood tape couldn’t stop him: Thanks to Trump, the words “grab ‘em by the p----” permanently entered the cultural lexicon, and yet somehow the women wearing pink cat hats in protest became the punchline. He’s spent a lifetime describing women in grotesque terms like “crazed, crying lowlife,” “dog,” and “pig,” and famously referred to his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton as a “nasty woman.” And he hasn’t shown any more respect for the women in his life: His alleged affair with Daniels took place months after his current wife and former first lady Melania Trump gave birth to their son, Barron. Ex-wife Ivanka Trump once claimed Trump raped her, though she later retracted the claim. Trump has groped and jeered and drummed the beat of misogyny throughout his whole life, which makes Daniels’ potential triumph feel that much sweeter, especially considering all of the other women he left in his wake. We know that Daniels met with New York prosecutors last week in relation to the probe against Trump, and it’s not yet clear if she’ll testify before the grand jury. But what we do know is that she’s finally able to make her voice heard and seek some semblance of justice, which is something the many other women whom Trump has allegedly demeaned or violated or attacked have not been able to seek. A Trump indictment won’t erase the pain he’s caused for E. Jean Carroll, Summer Zervos, Natasha Stoynoff, Jill Harth, and the other women he allegedly tried to break in order to gain and maintain power. (Again, Trump denies any allegations of sexual assault or misconduct). But with Daniels at the center of what could be the first domino to fall in Trump’s many criminal investigations, there could be some small sense of female restitution. Trump tried to make Stormy Daniels a punchline. Now she gets the last laugh.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Mar 21, 2023 11:32:10 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer. Just what is the Statue of Limitations on the crime Trump did on the payoff to that porn star? Is there a time limit? Ive read it has something to do with election funds or personal funds. Statute of limitations. Why do you research it yourself instead of others doing all your work for you. Oh come on, I'd be interested to know if there is a statute of limitations for a Presidential candidate of the US to pay his porn star off with election funds to keep quiet.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 21, 2023 11:44:29 GMT -5
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 21, 2023 11:45:53 GMT -5
I suppose we'll know tomorrow when or if trump gets arrested on State or Federal charges. Then I guess I can narrow down the statue of limitations. Its the Manhattan DA's office, they can't prosecute federal charges. SOL on NY felonies is 5 years, generally, 2 years on a misdemeanor. But the statue of limitations is tolled when you leave the state, so when he moved his residence to FL, the statute tolled.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 21, 2023 11:47:22 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 21, 2023 12:56:40 GMT -5
I suppose we'll know tomorrow when or if trump gets arrested on State or Federal charges. Then I guess I can narrow down the statue of limitations. Its the Manhattan DA's office, they can't prosecute federal charges. SOL on NY felonies is 5 years, generally, 2 years on a misdemeanor. But the statue of limitations is tolled when you leave the state, so when he moved his residence to FL, the statute tolled. sorry, what does "tolled" mean?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,137
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 21, 2023 13:06:33 GMT -5
Its the Manhattan DA's office, they can't prosecute federal charges. SOL on NY felonies is 5 years, generally, 2 years on a misdemeanor. But the statue of limitations is tolled when you leave the state, so when he moved his residence to FL, the statute tolled. sorry, what does "tolled" mean? Suspends, basically, so the passage of time effectively ceases with regard to the statute of limitations.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 21, 2023 14:15:05 GMT -5
Its the Manhattan DA's office, they can't prosecute federal charges. SOL on NY felonies is 5 years, generally, 2 years on a misdemeanor. But the statue of limitations is tolled when you leave the state, so when he moved his residence to FL, the statute tolled. sorry, what does "tolled" mean? put on hold. Example: You commit felony in NY on 1/1/2000. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations would have run on 12/31/2004. However, if you moved out of NYS on 1/1/2003, the statute of limitations is still open.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,868
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 22, 2023 12:15:45 GMT -5
I believe the time limit is up for Jean Carrols rape against him but what she’s currently suing him for is defamation for all the ugly shit he said about her more recently.
That’s the case where Trump claimed Carrol was ‘not my type’ but when shown a picture of her as she looked back then he misidentified her as his second wife Marla, who very clearly was his type.
Once again, he shot himself in his foot. Good thing he’s so dumb, or he’d be more dangerous.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 22, 2023 12:19:55 GMT -5
I believe the time limit is up for Jean Carrols rape against him but what she’s currently suing him for is defamation for all the ugly shit he said about her more recently. That’s the case where Trump claimed Carrol was ‘not my type’ but when shown a picture of her as she looked back then he misidentified her as his second wife Marla, who very clearly was his type. Once again, he shot himself in his foot. Good thing he’s so dumb, or he’d be more dangerous. NY just extended the SOL for adult rape victims.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,688
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 22, 2023 18:38:50 GMT -5
sorry, what does "tolled" mean? put on hold. Example: You commit felony in NY on 1/1/2000. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations would have run on 12/31/2004. However, if you moved out of NYS on 1/1/2003, the statute of limitations is still open. Interesting. Does the statute of limitations clock restart if someone moves back to NY? Like in your example, is there two years left to go through if that person moved back to NY on 3/31/2023?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 22, 2023 19:57:22 GMT -5
i thought he still had a residence in NY. but i guess he is not considered a resident there?
|
|