The common thread in Trump's defenders

[BPPLEE]

At least in my part of the infosphere, the juror thing was over before it even got started. I didn't even bother to pre-bunk it.

Perhaps I wasn't quite as sanguine as...
View attachment 349764

But, it looks like we have at least another news' cycle's worth of...
View attachment 349765

They knew what the verdict would be

 

[Brihaha]

No! It's not a hoax .

You need to know how deep this goes.

I hope you don't mind if I continue chuckling until they get to the bottom of it do ya?

They knew what the verdict would be

It seems some still don't get it.

 

[BPPLEE]

I hope you don't mind if I continue chuckling until they get to the bottom of it do ya?



It seems some still don't get it.

It wasn’t hard to guess

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because he is being especially careful to avoid any problems on appeal. Complete transparency.

I don't believe that for a second - unless you are also claiming that this judge is writing letters for every post claiming something about the jurors or the verdict.

The only logical reason he would write this letter is because the post came from a possibly credible source - the actual cousin of a juror.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't believe that for a second - unless you are also claiming that this judge is writing letters for every post claiming something about the jurors or the verdict.

The only logical reason he would write this letter is because the post came from a possibly credible source - the actual cousin of a juror.

No, another perfectly logical reason is that he is duty-bound to inform counsel of the claim regardless of their veracity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The cognitive dissonance has gotten so strong a poop-poster on Facebook can say [a few days afterwards] "I'm a poop-poster. That was a poop-post. Here is the definition of poop-posting, if you're unaware."

And the MAGA faithful are all

 

[ralliann]

We’re all just as frustrated because you and the other TrumpFans keep getting a bunch of basic facts wrong, such as the claim about the statute of limitations that @KCfromNC just pointed out.

We all like getting into it, but it gets pretty ridiculous when one side refuses to do their homework.

The trial was about ELECTION fraud. This is what elevated the nda to a felony. Not the EXPIRED misdemeanor.
1. The misdemeanor is mentioned here
A copy and paste from your link
"When a prosecution for an offense is lawfully commenced within the prescribed period of limitation therefor, and when an accusatory instrument upon which such prosecution is based is subsequently dismissed by an authorized court under directions or circumstances"

2. The permitting of another charge ( Election fraud, a federal crime, a felony) For the same issues....

copy and paste continued
" permitting the lodging of another charge for the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct, the period extending from the commencement of the thus defeated prosecution to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument does not constitute a part of the period of limitation" as the first misdemeanor charge"

3. They said since they are finding charge , it would not be part and parcel to the limitations...... of the first charge (misdemeanor)

Either way you slice this
This is about an nda...

 

[iluvatar5150]

The trial was about ELECTION fraud. This is what elevated the nda to a felony. Not the EXPIRED misdemeanor.
1. The misdemeanor is mentioned here
A copy and paste from your link
"When a prosecution for an offense is lawfully commenced within the prescribed period of limitation therefor, and when an accusatory instrument upon which such prosecution is based is subsequently dismissed by an authorized court under directions or circumstances"

2. The permitting of another charge ( Election fraud, a federal crime, a felony) For the same issues....

copy and paste continued
" permitting the lodging of another charge for the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct, the period extending from the commencement of the thus defeated prosecution to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument does not constitute a part of the period of limitation" as the first misdemeanor charge"

3. They said since they are finding charge , it would not be part and parcel to the limitations...... of the first charge (misdemeanor)

Either way you slice this
This is about an nda...

I don't recall having linked to the section about the statue of limitations, but either way, I don't think you understood what you quoted. Here's the entire section:

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

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 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.

(b) When a prosecution for an offense is lawfully commenced within the prescribed period of limitation therefor, and when an accusatory instrument upon which such prosecution is based is subsequently dismissed by an authorized court under directions or circumstances permitting the lodging of another charge for the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct, the period extending from the commencement of the thus defeated prosecution to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument does not constitute a part of the period of limitation applicable to commencement of prosecution by a new charge.

I'm not really sure what you think this section says or does, but what it actually does is describe a couple of things that pause the clock on the statue of limitations.

(a) Says that the clock can be paused up to a total of 5 years if the accused is either out of the state or if the authorities can't find him.

(b) Says that the clock can be paused by other court proceedings related to the original crime.

There was another reason that the statute of limitations was paused: Gov Cuomo had issued an executive order extending statutes of limitations due to the disruptions brought on by the pandemic. The judge in the Trump case used the Governor's EO to extend the clock without deciding on whether his being regularly out of state could also have paused the clock, though it seems to me that that would have also done the job in the absence of the EO.

After conviction, Trump questioned the New York statute of limitations. Here are the facts

Trump and his team have said the statute of limitations may be an issue in appealing his convictions. Here's what we know about the unusual timing.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

The trial was about ELECTION fraud.

No, the trial was about business records fraud.

This is what elevated the nda to a felony. Not the EXPIRED misdemeanor.

The nda was not a crime. The business records fraud was.

1. The misdemeanor is mentioned here
A copy and paste from your link
"When a prosecution for an offense is lawfully commenced within the prescribed period of limitation therefor, and when an accusatory instrument upon which such prosecution is based is subsequently dismissed by an authorized court under directions or circumstances"

2. The permitting of another charge ( Election fraud, a federal crime, a felony) For the same issues....

Again, not election fraud. the "additional crime" was a election *finance* violation.

copy and paste continued
" permitting the lodging of another charge for the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct, the period extending from the commencement of the thus defeated prosecution to the dismissal of the accusatory instrument does not constitute a part of the period of limitation" as the first misdemeanor charge"

3. They said since they are finding charge , it would not be part and parcel to the limitations...... of the first charge (misdemeanor)

Either way you slice this
This is about an nda...

It is about the *payment* for that NDA and the illegal lengths taken to hide the payment.

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, another perfectly logical reason is that he is duty-bound to inform counsel of the claim regardless of their veracity.

Explain why.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Explain why.

I don't know what the law or professional legal ethics require regarding disclosure, so I'm hypothesizing.

It strikes me as completely plausible that a judge, upon learning of such a claim, would be required to inform the respective parties so that they can pursue subsequent legal actions. It's not the judge's job to determine whether or not the claim was credible.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So you say, but as has been pointed out, the court rejected that claim. Do you know why?




I also provided the judge’s instructions to the jury where he explained these other crimes, which you’d know if you’d read it.



Lol, that’s not what confirmation bias is. I’d give a link to the definition, but I see how much good that has done.

There is no "so you say." You said he was being charged with a state crime to cover up a federal crime. The statute of limitations expired for the state crime, therefor New York should have had nothing to do with anything and should have been tried in federal cour for election interference. But this is Trump we are talking about, and the district attorney ran a campaign promising to have Trump in jail. So instead of having a federal trial about election interference, they had a state trial for a supposed fraud that occurred well after the statute of limitations. This is a typical case of the left trying to have their cake and eat it to. They wanted to bring up trumped up charges past the statute of limitations by invoking a federal crime without providing any evidence of such crime to convict a man for a state offense outside the statute of limitations. This is some for real Orwellian dictator banana Republic stuff, and you should be afraid.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is no "so you say." You said he was being charged with a state crime to cover up a federal crime. The statute of limitations expired for the state crime

No, it hadn't expired. You are wrong. I explained why you are wrong in post 209 in my comments to @ralliann where I also linked to a news story that describes the judge's decision on this matter. I'm not going to copy-paste it again; I'm going to expect you to go read it this time.

, therefor New York should have had nothing to do with anything and should have been tried in federal cour for election interference. But this is Trump we are talking about, and the district attorney ran a campaign promising to have Trump in jail. So instead of having a federal trial about election interference, they had a state trial for a supposed fraud that occurred well after the statute of limitations. This is a typical case of the left trying to have their cake and eat it to. They wanted to bring up trumped up charges past the statute of limitations by invoking a federal crime without providing any evidence of such crime to convict a man for a state offense outside the statute of limitations. This is some for real Orwellian dictator banana Republic stuff, and you should be afraid.

No, what this is is a typical case of TrumpFans not bothering to educate themselves before going off on tirades. You're free to feel that the prosecution was politically motivated, but you're not free to invent your own facts, which you continue to do despite being repeatedly corrected.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, it hadn't expired. You are wrong. I explained why you are wrong in post 209 in my comments to @ralliann where I also linked to a news story that describes the judge's decision on this matter. I'm not going to copy-paste it again; I'm going to expect you to go read it this time.



No, what this is is a typical case of TrumpFans not bothering to educate themselves before going off on tirades. You're free to feel that the prosecution was politically motivated, but you're not free to invent your own facts, which you continue to do despite being repeatedly corrected.

Maybe TrumpFans wouldn’t go on so many tirades if they weren’t given so much ammunition. Politically motivated is all that really needs to be said.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Maybe TrumpFans wouldn’t go on so many tirades if they weren’t given so much ammunition.

Yeah, well, take that up with the right-wing media that pumps out lie after lie in service of their gilded leader.

Politically motivated is all that really needs to be said.

And yet it's not all that's being said, is it? No, we have all of this easily-falsifiable information getting piled on top of it, because it's easier to build outrage (and therefore, generate clicks) for the "politically motivated" charge when you can bolster it with a bunch of nonsense.

 

[ralliann]

I don't recall having linked to the section about the statue of limitations, but either way, I don't think you understood what you quoted. Here's the entire section:

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

I'm not really sure what you think this section says or does, but what it actually does is describe a couple of things that pause the clock on the statue of limitations.

(a) Says that the clock can be paused up to a total of 5 years if the accused is either out of the state or if the authorities can't find him.

1. A criminal action must be commenced within the period of limitation
prescribed in the ensuing subdivisions of this section.

(b) Says that the clock can be paused by other court proceedings related to the original crime.

The original crime was a misdemeanor
Subdivisions
(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five
years after the commission thereof;

(c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years
after the commission thereof;

There was another reason that the statute of limitations was paused: Gov Cuomo had issued an executive order extending statutes of limitations due to the disruptions brought on by the pandemic. The judge in the Trump case used the Governor's EO to extend the clock without deciding on whether his being regularly out of state could also have paused the clock, though it seems to me that that would have also done the job in the absence of the EO.

After conviction, Trump questioned the New York statute of limitations. Here are the facts

Trump and his team have said the statute of limitations may be an issue in appealing his convictions. Here's what we know about the unusual timing.

www.usatoday.com

The pausing is for the trying of a felony, the secondary crime. They did not want the limitations to apply to the felony they were just now bringing conveniently just after (days) Trump announced his candidacy. the original crime was dead, it was the five years they were arguing pause for.......
That original crime was already looked at by the FBI etc. That is where the witness, Costello came in, to give witness to it all. There was no felony, attached to a NORMAL NDA by them.....They (bragg) were arguing concerning the Charges of a felony, for the exact same activity with a limitation of 5 years. They just now charged him......they (bragg) could have charged him years ago.....
Making a NDA a campaign contribution. They created a crime out of an NDA. YEARS LATER

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don't know what the law or professional legal ethics require regarding disclosure, so I'm hypothesizing.

It strikes me as completely plausible that a judge, upon learning of such a claim, would be required to inform the respective parties so that they can pursue subsequent legal actions. It's not the judge's job to determine whether or not the claim was credible.

It seems that you misunderstood my initial claim.

I did not say that the judge sent that letter because the claim was proven to be true - but that he sent it because he verified that the post was made from an actual cousin to one of the jurors.

I said that he sent the letter because it was from a "possibly credible source".

My initial claim was that the judge would not send out this letter before he "verified the post" - meaning that it was from an actual cousin and that it was "possibly credible".

 

[iluvatar5150]

The original crime was a misdemeanor

The base crime was a misdemeanor, but it was upgraded to a felony because it was done in pursuit of another crime.

Subdivisions

(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five
years after the commission thereof;

(c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years
after the commission thereof;


The pausing is for the trying of a felony, the secondary crime.

No, that is incorrect. The portion of the law that describes the pausing of the clock makes no distinction between misdemeanors and felonies. The clock get paused in those conditions regardless of whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor. Where the difference comes is in how much time was on the clock in the first place (i.e. 2 years vs 5).

Not that this is terribly relevant, because, as I already pointed out, the clock extension that the judge used was based on an executive order signed by the governor, not this particular statute.

They did not want the limitations to apply to the felony they were just now bringing conviently just after (days) Trump announced his candidacy.

He announced his candidacy two years before the election. Is he supposed to be off-limits because he announced that early? Would you have been more comfortable with the prosecution if they'd empaneled the grand jury before he announced?

 

[iluvatar5150]

It seems that you misunderstood my initial claim.

I did not say that the judge sent that letter because the claim was proven to be true - but that he sent it because he verified that the post was made from an actual cousin to one of the jurors.

I said that he sent the letter because it was from a "possibly credible source".

My initial claim was that the judge would not send out this letter before he "verified the post" - meaning that it was from an actual cousin and that it was "possibly credible".

I understood your claim; I just don't assume that the standard for disclosure is as high as you do. You're assuming that the judge substantiated at least part of the claim (i.e. the part about the poster being a cousin of a juror), whereas I think it's plausible that the judge would be required to inform the parties of the claim as soon as he became aware that the claim was made.

 

[ralliann]

The base crime was a misdemeanor, but it was upgraded to a felony because it was done in pursuit of another crime.

The misdemeanor was an FBI investigation. They knew all about the NDA and trying to hide the payment, to keep the NDA hush...

No, that is incorrect. The portion of the law that describes the pausing of the clock makes no distinction between misdemeanors and felonies.

Neither did we see a distinction in most part of the trial. That is why scholars on T.V. kept asking what is the crime? Trumps lawyers asked several times what the charges were. He never got an answer. We did not find out what they were going for until the last few weeks. Trumps lawyers have this issue on appeal. A person has a right to know exactly what he is being charged. Obviously, you cannot prepare a proper defense without a clear knowledge of what you are defending against.......HA, of course they did not say, it was a federal crime they were going for in the end. They had no jurisdiction in that....Costello was called as a witness then, because he knew what all went on with the FBI. decisions on that case. The federal government seen no election fraud, and the had jurisdiction to do so.

The clock get paused in those conditions regardless of whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor. Where the difference comes is in how much time was on the clock in the first place (i.e. 2 years vs 5).

Not that this is terribly relevant, because, as I already pointed out, the clock extension that the judge used was based on an executive order signed by the governor, not this particular statute.



He announced his candidacy two years before the election. Is he supposed to be off-limits because he announced that early? Would you have been more comfortable with the prosecution if they'd empaneled the grand jury before he announced?

I will listen to the legal scholars on this case. And that is also how I will look at these links...and the legalese, which is meant to be confusing. All seeing MANY problems here.