DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump hush Money Trial Set to start On April 15th.

I will attempt to make myself more clear.

Do you believe that the State of New York given all the circumstances would put a former president on trial for a felony without firmly believing that they had sufficient evidence to prove his guilt?

I have no legal background and have never played an attorney on TV.

Again, I know they can't match vague language from Dupée & Monroe in Goshen.

Nobody can explain common sense to anyone. It’s acquired by living life above ground.

"Alvin, I have Pit@Dawgtalkers on the line, he says you're going about this all the wrong way".

"Pit@Dawgtalkers? Daaayummm" (runs to phone)

You always say crap like this when you are called out.

While driving today, I heard a legal expert talking aboout the case (For those who this might make a difference for, I listen to POTUS radio on sirius/xm), and he said prosecution still need to prove trump knew about the "cooking the books" (my words).

My interpretation is that I have heard things about that and it proved it to me but as of yet has not been presented in court.
Just presenting this info for balance of what may have been a statement I made that was not completely accurate

Good reply, thanks! I kind of feel like they are wasting time with this. But whatever.

That’s because you’re voting for him.

Because this trial is dragging on and they havent produced any evidence of wrong doing.

Thanks for noticing.

A democrat judge,
with a daughter working for democrats,
a trial in a deeply democrat city,
within a democrat state,
brought by a democrat prosecutor,
with an assistant prosecutor on loan from a democrat president’s DOJ,
in a state with a democrat AG who ran on prosecuting Trump,
and with a jury pool selected from majority democrats?

The out-of-town provision is one of several legal maneuvers authorities could consider, as they look to build a case and make charging decisions that would allow them to look beyond the traditional five-year statute of limitations for many New York felonies.

“There are numerous procedural tools in the proverbial woodshed that prosecutors could wield when enforcing the law. Depending on the circumstances, merely because your conduct appears to be outside what is otherwise a strict five-year statute of limitations does not mean you’ll get a pass,” said Jeremy Saland, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan.

The provision at issue says, “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.”

The law caps the extension at five years.

During Trump’s four years in Washington, he spent very little time at his home in New York, choosing instead to take breaks in Florida at Mar-a-Lago or his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. After leaving office he relocated to Florida and this week made his first visit to his New York home and office.

If prosecutors invoke that section of the law, it means they could argue that the time Trump has been out of New York, would not count in the calculation of the statute of limitations.

For example, if prosecutors found evidence of wrongdoing in 2015, the typical statute would expire in 2020. But under this tolling provision, the clock could stop for the periods of time Trump was out of New York during the five-year period, effectively allowing them to consider earlier conduct.
How provision was used with Weinstein

The district attorney’s office invoked the out-of-state tolling extension in its criminal case against Weinstein. Prosecutors charged Weinstein with multiple crimes, including rape in the third degree for an alleged assault that occurred in March 2013. Weinstein was charged in May 2018, two months after the five-year statute of limitations on that offense would have expired.

Weinstein challenged the charge, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations and as a resident of New York state the extension wouldn’t apply to him.

Prosecutors used records from “United States Customs and Border Control” to show that Weinstein had been out of New York for 193 days during that five-year period– more than the 68 days needed to capture the earlier conduct.

The judge rejected Weinstein’s argument and allowed the charge to stand. Weinstein was convicted on charges of sexual assault and is serving a 23-year sentence.

“I’m not sure in this case that they would need to go to those lengths but it’s another mechanism they might be able to avail themselves of,” said Peter Katz, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan. “They will try to use the laws to the fullest extent.”

Multiple legal experts tell CNN that prosecutors could extend the statute by pursuing conspiracy charges, which would allow them to charge older conduct that falls outside the statute of limitations if they can prove it was part of an ongoing conspiracy.

Another statute available is the state equivalent of a racketeering charge, which is known as enterprise corruption. Under that theory, prosecutors could include older conduct if they can prove a long pattern of illegal conduct committed as part of a criminal enterprise.

Saland, the former prosecutor, added, “Prosecutors would be doing themselves a disservice by making a case more difficult than it need be. Giving Trump a soapbox to challenge an exception to the statute of limitations would allow him to sow confusion.”

Instead, he says, if prosecutors simplify the case and focused on false filings, assuming they were made, “then the former President could very likely find himself the recipient of both a felony record and Scarlett Letter for defrauding the people of the State of New York.”

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/politics/trump-statute-of-limitations/index.html

Because this trial is dragging on and they havent produced any evidence of wrong doing.

For us lay people, what does it mean for a lawyer to withdraw?

Thanks PS

IT wasn't a specific instance I was referring to. It was the comment by Dawglover05 in the post right above mine that I meant to reply to rather that the original post by Pit

How have they proven he had sex with her? She says they did and he says they didn't. The claim is even though he didn't have sex with her the story would still have been damaging so they paid her for her silence. Even though I'm not crazy about how the following sounds I believe it's true. What you seem to be saying is that a jury of 12 people will take the word of a porn star over the word of a former president and I don't believe it's quite that cut and dry. Believe me I think trump is guilty as sin but that's not the point here.

As of now I don't see it as looking that bad for him. Maybe 05 could give a better take on it than I can. Showing he paid the money to Daniels really has nothing to do with what he's being accused of as I understand it. What my understanding is that what needs to be proven is that he did it to hide that fact from the voters. As to not damage his election. That's going to be a little tougher to prove.

I've seen former prosecutors explain that what these prosecutors are trying to do is paint the entire picture. From the beginning to the end. And that would seem to makes sense. That seems to be the route they're taking. First showing that it was trump who made the payments. That he knew Cohen made the payment and that the payment was on trump's behalf. That not only did trump know it, but he repaid that money to Cohen. So far I think they've pretty well established that.

But what I think the case hinges on is that his motivation was related to the election. There has also been testimony that he had all newspapers, at least the Washington Post from being delivered to the White House so Melania wouldn't see the story. So proving his motive was election related verses not wanting his wife to find out may be a little tougher for the prosecution. But if painting the picture is what their goal is, they are getting close to the point they'll need to prove that motive.

We'll see.