Bonus question…

@no1marauder said
No, I've told you what the crime Trump is charged with numerous times; it's stated in the indictment 34 times so guesswork is not required.

Then why do MANY MANY scholars and practicers of law keep asking what the crime is. and we all take note that you have not clearly stated what the crime is. You think you have because in your brain your thoughts have conlagulated into the beyond of Lexis Nexis, and have dribbled out from your fingertips into the threads.
You have told us nothing. And the 2week old article I linked still holds true, your Marxist persecutor has not moved an inch.
Your mind probably looks like an octopus tangled up in a fishing net.

@averagejoe1 said
Then why do MANY MANY scholars and practicers of law keep asking what the crime is. and we all take note that you have not clearly stated what the crime is. You think you have because in your brain your thoughts have conlagulated into the beyond of Lexis Nexis, and have dribbled out from your fingertips into the threads.
You have told us nothing. And the 2week old ...[text shortened]... or has not moved an inch.
Your mind probably looks like an octopus tangled up in a fishing net.

You must be an idiot to write such a post.

You have been told the specific crime Trump is charged with several times in this thread alone. It is, once again as specified in the indictment, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in violation of NY Penal Law Section 175.10, a Class E Felony.

I don't know what moronic propagandists you are gullibly accepting as gospel but they are deceiving you if they are actually claiming they don't know what crime Trump is charged with.

@no1marauder said
You must be an idiot to write such a post.

You have been told the specific crime Trump is charged with several times in this thread alone. It is, once again as specified in the indictment, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in violation of NY Penal Law Section 175.10, a Class E Felony.

I don't know what moronic propagandists you are gullibly accepting ...[text shortened]... ey are deceiving you if they are actually claiming they don't know what crime Trump is charged with.

Well, try this on for size. This is a highlight out of JonathanTurly.org
So, what say you. Turley wrong, Marauder right? Or what? It is 4 simple, easy to read, paragraphs. Yours are NEVER easy to read.

""Indicting Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Bragg left out a small detail: The underlying felony Trump allegedly sought to conceal over and over. That, apparently, is left to the suspension of disbelief.

For many weeks, experts on both the left and the right expressed doubts that Bragg could charge Trump with falsifying business records, a misdemeanor with a now-expired two-year statute of limitation. To be able to file such a charge, Bragg would need to kick it up to a felony by alleging it was committed to conceal or further another crime — in this case, a federal campaign violation.

The problem is that the Justice Department declined to bring such charges. The reason was likely due to a tiny problem: There is no campaign finance violation in Trump paying women to hush up alleged affairs. Moreover, even if there were a violation, Bragg is not a federal prosecutor. In other words, his case is as implausible as Wood’s cardboard tombstones.

When asked by reporters what crime was being referenced 34 times, Bragg simply stated that he was not required to state the crime in the indictment. Despite becoming the first prosecutor to charge a former president, Bragg felt no compulsion to explain the claim that kicked the misdemeanor up to a felony and allowed a longer statute of limitations"
There's that pesky statute of limitations. Marauder, you never square for us that the statute has expired. Why is that? Libs do not close their posts.

@averagejoe1 said
Well, try this on for size. This is a highlight out of JonathanTurly.org
So, what say you. Turley wrong, Marauder right? Or what? It is 4 simple, easy to read, paragraphs. Yours are NEVER easy to read.

""Indicting Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Bragg left out a small detail: The underlying felony Trump allegedly sought to conceal ov ...[text shortened]... you never square for us that the statute has expired. Why is that? Libs do not close their posts.

Turley leaves out that Bragg's statement that he need not state the predicate crime in the indictment is settled New York law. And not even Turley dares make the absurd claim you do i.e. that the indictment doesn't state the crime Trump is charged with.

I've already covered the Statute of Limitations issue; Trump's long absence from the State tolls any S of L..

@no1marauder said
Turley leaves out that Bragg's statement that he need not state the predicate crime in the indictment is settled New York law. And not even Turley dares make the absurd claim you do i.e. that the indictment doesn't state the crime Trump is charged with.

I've already covered the Statute of Limitations issue; Trump's long absence from the State tolls any S of L..

Well, now you know where I stand and I (I think) know where you stand. You gotta admit it is a bit suspect that you have never commented on that pesky statute of limitations.
So, could you avail us all of where, in that statute, it makes some exception of the defendant having been 'out of the state'?

@averagejoe1 said
Well, now you know where I stand and I (I think) know where you stand. You gotta admit it is a bit suspect that you have never commented on that pesky statute of limitations.
So, could you avail us all of where, in that statute, it makes some exception of the defendant having been 'out of the state'?

hang on, he will make something up 😂

he kinda ignores the six amendment too…he thinks bragg has totalitarian powers

@mott-the-hoople said
hang on, he will make something up 😂

he kinda ignores the six amendment too…he thinks bragg has totalitarian powers

When he takes a while to answer, he has got his paralegals, searching through Lexis Nexis for some obscure case or whatever his reason my be. Prepare for links.

@no1marauder said
Turley leaves out that Bragg's statement that he need not state the predicate crime in the indictment is settled New York law. And not even Turley dares make the absurd claim you do i.e. that the indictment doesn't state the crime Trump is charged with.

I've already covered the Statute of Limitations issue; Trump's long absence from the State tolls any S of L..

The statute is there for a legal reason. If your son commits a crime, like this misdemeanor where no one was a victim, and it is discovered that his crime is no longer recognized due to the statute, would you think that SINCE HE DID IT, he should be prosecuted. ?
Yes or no, and then we can debate the exception. Now remember, you possibly have Lexis and paralegals, I generally come off the cuff, maybe at the wine store.

@averagejoe1 said
Well, now you know where I stand and I (I think) know where you stand. You gotta admit it is a bit suspect that you have never commented on that pesky statute of limitations.
So, could you avail us all of where, in that statute, it makes some exception of the defendant having been 'out of the state'?

I commented on it on March 22, nearly a month ago:

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

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

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/gop-obstructing-trump-arrest.196513/page-4#post_4642060

@averagejoe1 said
When he takes a while to answer, he has got his paralegals, searching through Lexis Nexis for some obscure case or whatever his reason my be. Prepare for links.

I have better things to do than hang around this site 24/7. Had to do my taxes yesterday.

I have no paralegals nor access to Lexis or Nexis anymore. You can get the same information I do by Google searches.

@averagejoe1 said
Well, now you know where I stand and I (I think) know where you stand. You gotta admit it is a bit suspect that you have never commented on that pesky statute of limitations.
So, could you avail us all of where, in that statute, it makes some exception of the defendant having been 'out of the state'?

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

"4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a
criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which
(i) the defendant was continuously outside this state

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10

@no1marauder said
I have better things to do than hang around this site 24/7. Had to do my taxes yesterday.

I have no paralegals nor access to Lexis or Nexis anymore. You can get the same information I do by Google searches.

...or play golf. I prefer nice candid discussions, like my metaphoric table at Starbucks on occasion. Just throw something out, like 'Do you think all this stuff started with passage of Civil RightsAct", and then get everyone's opinion. Not a lecture. If we did Starbucks, we would not be able to avail ourselves of outside sources. Nirvana. Just talk, no one would expect an 'answer' to the question posed above, just ruminations.
I think you are too much a perfectionist to sit through such a coffee chat. You seem like one such as Vivify, who would get up and leave if it didn't go your way....you would miss the fun!

@no1marauder said
Here's the relevant provision on New York's Criminal Procedure Law, CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i):

"4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a
criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which
(i) the defendant was continuously outside this state

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10

If you came off the top of your head with this at Stqrbuck's, I would say I am surprised , I have never heard of that. You got me. Then our friend Bubba would say, "Well why is this still a daily issue? If the law still applies under that exception, why doesn't someone just flat out make it dogma and let Bragg move on? Why doesn't Bragg show everyone like me exactly what you just said, Marauder?'"
So could you answer Bubba's question ?

@averagejoe1 said
...or play golf. I prefer nice candid discussions, like my metaphoric table at Starbucks on occasion. Just throw something out, like 'Do you think all this stuff started with passage of Civil RightsAct", and then get everyone's opinion. Not a lecture. If we did Starbucks, we would not be able to avail ourselves of outside sources. Nirvana. Just talk, no one would ex ...[text shortened]... e one such as Vivify, who would get up and leave if it didn't go your way....you would miss the fun!

You can find such information in seconds with a Smartphone if you know how to properly word searches. I have a nice S22 (I'm an Android guy), so people playing dumb wouldn't work even at Starbucks (which I don't go to).

It's the 21st Century, Joe.

@averagejoe1 said
If you came off the top of your head with this at Stqrbuck's, I would say I am surprised , I have never heard of that. You got me. Then our friend Bubba would say, "Well why is this still a daily issue? If the law still applies under that exception, why doesn't someone just flat out make it dogma and let Bragg move on? Why doesn't Bragg show everyone like me exactly what you just said, Marauder?'"
So could you answer Bubba's question ?

Because this is a legal proceeding.

What will happen is that Trump's lawyers, assuming they are reasonably competent, will file pre-trial motions which will presumably include a Motion to Dismiss on, inter alia, grounds of the Statute of Limitations. And then Bragg will oppose said motion and both sides will present legal arguments for and against the motion. And then the Judge will decide.

That's how the legal system works, even for Donald Trump.