NY lawmakers propose law to prevent Trump from avoiding prosecution

Like Eric "Wingman" Holder?

 

True. The easiest solution would be to remove the protection that now exists for one person.

 

Huh? Recall that I was the one who brought who brought CPL 30.10 your attention, as your erroneous comments showed that you weren’t aware of it, to which you replied “I stand corrected”, so no need to tell me what the wording is!

Nor is it relevant to my comment. I cited his absence purely by way of repeating part of your laundry list of things he could do - including the notion that he could skip to Florida where a friendly judge could refuse an extradition. Which would necessarily involve being absent from NY.

In doing so, did I make any reference at all to the NY statute of imitations (CPL 30.10)?

Specifically, did I at any point say that it wouldn’t apply if he was in NY?

NO and NO.

Hence it’s not possible to say I wasn’t following the wording. I didn’t mention it at all.

A Parker warning is not sufficient for a trial in absentia. The fact that a defendant can appear at the start of a trial and waive their right to appear thereafter, doesn’t automatically give prosecutors the right to try them in absentia. It must be authorized by a judge who will investigate the circumstances. The more complex the case the more cautious they are in weighing up what best serves the defendant.You also need to ask yourself which Trump would prefer. To be tried and potentially convicted in absentia, or - before it even gets to that stage - simply stay absent and have the statute tolled so that an indictment is kicked down the road?

Finally, it’s not enough to keep saying “due process”. You need to explain how due process would be violated, while mindful of the fact that courts can and do toll statutes for specific individuals.

 

It was Vance, in oral arguments. Not that he wouldn't but that he wasn't planning to. Largely to curtail (I believe) the interminable song-and-dance routine in the Trump ranks about immunity. Though it didn't address it head on, as a result, SCOTUS' rulings did imply that he could go ahead, any time, if he wanted to.

So yes, it's possible he does so before inauguration.

Unfortunately, I can't find a reference. I probably will, when I'm not looking.

 

Found the actual words from Trump v. Vance SCOTUS oral arguments, spoken by Carey Dunne for Vance soon into his segment, starting at 50:06, here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?47167...ney-obtain-president-trumps-financial-records

Or, you can read this transcript (times are well out of sync by a few plus hours with to C-Span). Dunne’s about ¾ page down.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...-hearings-donald-trump-financials-tax-returns

So, a fairly clear "no", but not necessarily reflective of whether they think they could, or not.

Going through the whole thing again, it’s easy to see why they would concede/evade the prosecution issue. Sekulow (who does an excellent job of tying himself in knots) is desperate to spins wheels with that. Vance wants to stay laser-focused on getting what he wants - evidence.

Plus, snippets from this article:

 

Good stuff... and it all leads back to why NY feels they need this tolling law passed... if the individual states are not willing/able to indict during office, they have to keep their SOL laws intact...

Don't forget, the Appeals court will (once again) hear Trump regurgitate his tripe this Friday (9/25). The 3 judge panel might be Walker (Bush Sr - Actually Poppy Bush's 1st cousin), Katzmann (Clinton), and Lohier (Obama), so there's a reasonable chance on paper this appeal will be denied without requiring en banc.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-4aca-de4a-ad7d-feef506b0000

 

Thanks for the reminder - and laugh, re the Judges.

 

It still makes me scratch my head why this case might go back to the SCOTUS.... They originally ruled absolute immunity was BS, meaning Vance could investigate. That was certainly a case for the SCOTUS, so now we are in the "merits" section of this idiocy (which IMHO should have been decided at the same time as absolute immunity).

What is left in this case for the SCOTUS to decide? Merits of an individual subpoena?? Doesn't remotely seem like what our SCOTUS should be doing...

 

Baffles me too. Sure, SCOTUS said they could complain on other grounds, but Trump & Co. should know from everything SCOTUS said, not to mention their test run in District Court (abject failure mark II), that their "new" complaint - bad faith, overly broad fishing expedition - isn't going to fly either, if it ends up with them again. In fact, I think they covered just about anything that Trump & Co. could come up with. Insanity. And disgracefully disrespectful to think they can keep pecking at SCOTUS' with ever-shrinking reason.

 

If you go back and reread my statement you would find that I said that I stand corrected, but that it still did not make the proposed law Constitutional. I also responded to each of your suggestions, and showed you why they were wrong. If you research further, you will see that I credited you as bring the CPL to my attention in a post to another person. I obviously needed to tell you what the wording was because your very suggestions ignored the wording of the CPL. So, my post was spot on, and yours is off base.

The fact that is the CPL 30.10 makes the proposed law unconstitutional. You can not run from that fact by saying that you never said it applied. It does apply, and I provided you a reason as to why it applied. You also misunderstood what I posted. I never said that the CPL would apply if he was in New York. So, let me clarify. The wording of the CPL 30.10 states that a person has to have been outside the state, and his/her location unknown for the time not to count towards statute of limitations. The President has returned to the state of New York a number of times during his Presidency. Each time would reset the clock if it actually applied. Therefore, the statute of limitation would not have run out, if he is not reelected. That would make the law unnecessary. But the law does not apply because of the second section of the requirement. He location would have had to be unknown to the state the entire time. I would expect that that provision was included to prevent a DA from doing exactly what Vance is doing now. That is waiting until a person moves to a friendly jurisdiction to extradite them. Imagine, if you will, someone fleeing to Texas on a charge that was nothing by political. NY attempts to extradite the individual, and the state of Texas refuses to honor the request. The current CPL states that the statute of limitation clock is still clicking away. But with the proposed law, the clock would stop for the President, and the law would only apply to the President. So, the person that flees to Texas could wait out the clock and the President could not.

Now, you claimed that "Due Process" is too vague. It really is not. The Fifth Amendment states that every one is allowed Due Process. That is a process stated in Federal, State and Local Statutes. The 5th Amendment is saying that Due Process must be applied to everyone without bias. The proposed law, as I have clearly shown, would violate the Due Process of the President, and no one else. Therefore, it is unconstitutional because of the CPL that you provided and the 5th Amendment.

 

The law would apply to all Presidents and would do nothing more than hold them to the same laws that the rest of us are subject to. It's as far from "a law for one person" as you can possibly get.

 

I understand if they amend the law to eliminate the loophole, but I don't agree with creating a new one.

 

It wouldn't even apply to all presidents.. just those being investigated in NY..

Certainly eliminates most of em..

 

No, it doesn't.

It's not "outside the state" AND "location unknown"

It's "outside the state" OR "location unknown"

It’s not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that the clock is reset to zero every time Trump goes to New York, so that every visit means there’s five years on the clock again? I hope not - because that would be wrong.

Well, whatever you’re trying to say here, here’s how it works.

The clock is not “reset”. When someone goes out of NY, the clock is simply paused. When they return, it starts ticking again - at the point where they left off. For instance, if there's 2 years and 6 months left on the clock when someone leaves NY, and they stay away for a year, there will still be 2 years and 6 months left on the clock when they come back again, at which point the clock will start ticking again.

So, any time that Trump’s spent in NY has counted toward the statute of limitations.

No, it says quite the reverse. It says it will be paused while they are out of state.

No, they would be in the same position. The clock would be paused for both of them.

However - and it’s a big but - that’s in theory.

In practice, most people fleeing to another state will be worse off than Trump.

Per case law, tolling provisions in 30:10 are viewed as primarily concerned with people who are attempting to evade justice. So, anyone fleeing to avoid indictment is a clear cut case in terms of pausing the clock - it would certainly be paused, no questions asked.

Trump, however, could reasonably and successfully argue that this doesn’t apply to him, and that he doesn’t have any choice about being absent, and therefore the tolling provision shouldn’t apply to him - the clock should keep running, absent or not.

But at the same time that it's ticking away, he can’t be indicted, because he’s President. And because he’s President for at least four years, there’s a good chance of never being indicted.

What’s more, if he’s re-elected, or the crimes were committed a year or so before he took office, it’s a certainty he’ll never be indicted.

This means a President is actually in a better position than anyone else, as things stand. Adding a president-specific provision to 30:10 simply levels the playing field.

Yes, it is too vague. You need explain it in terms of actual and specific elements of due process, and what exactly the harm is, in terms of outcome.

You might find that difficult. Even Sekulow and Justice Alito have suggested that the limitation could be tolled for Trump. I take it you'll agree that they know what's constitutional, and what's not.

You should also remind yourself that due process is a balancing act between the law of the land and the individual. While the interests of individuals are paramount, it’s not all about individuals.

Similarly, you consistently bemoan the concept of a president being treated differently from everyone else on one front while ignoring the fact that he gets special treatment (e.g immunity from indictment) on the other. Again, you can’t have it both ways.

Either he’s special in all respects, or he's the same in all respects.

 

I cannot find the actual final appeal filing before tomorrow's hearing, but President Snowflake seems to think he's not getting a "fair chance"

SNIP
U.S. President Donald Trump made a final push to keep his tax returns away from Manhattan's top prosecutor, saying he deserves a "fair chance" to show a subpoena for the returns was overbroad and issued in bad faith, according to a court filing on Thursday.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-deserves-fair-chance-challenge-155343447.html

So do the American people, dumbass... He's had chance after chance to delay this, ad nauseum... And he will lose again tomorrow (or whenever the appeals court rules)

I still find it laughable that his original argument was that this would take too much of his time as POTUS, which now is true due to his own actions..

 

No... Bill "4 Dozen Boneless Wings" Barr....

 

Let's throw this whole thing out and start over. You did some very selective cut and past to change the intent of the law. Actually reading the statute reveals why the state wants a new law that only applies to the President. It has nothing to do with the President losing the election in November (unless his supposed crime took place more then a year before the President took office). It has everything to do with him winning reelection. Let's look at NY CPL 30.10 Section 4, shall we:

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.
https://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL030.10_30.10.html

So, if the President is outside the State the entire period of five years, that time would not count. But the President has not been outside the state the entire time. So, each time the statute of limitation clock resets. But that last part of subsection (a) is the real kicker. The extension of the statute of limitations can not exceed five years. So, if the DA claims that the President committed a crime more then two years before he came to office, and the President get's reelected, then the statute of limitation still runs out before he leaves office. Now it makes sense. It is even possible that the statute would have ran out during President Trump's first term. Which would explain why they are pushing the law through now.

You should be ashamed of yourself trying to rewrite the law in order to make a point. In this case, timing is everything. I restate my case, that the proposed law would be unconstitutional because it only applies to one person.

 

Same - can't find the filing anywhere. Only news reports, no links. By all accounts sounds like the usual whinefest.

"Deserves a fair chance" ??? Words fail me.

Meanwhile tick-tock.

 

A snip from the hearing this AM

SNIP
But the three-judge panel questioned whether Trump was seeking special privileges because he was president, and challenged whether he would find any subpoena acceptable.

In response to a question by Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier, Consovoy could not offer a circumstance where he would view any request for documents as not being overbroad.

"That's a problem," Lohier said.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-lawyers-manhattan-prosecutors-square-110437473.html

No ****, that's a problem.... and an "argument" sure to fail with any district court judge (not named Neomi Rao)..

If everything is overbroad, then nothing really is... like one of my favorite old sayings - "He who defends everything, defends nothing"

 

Targeting a single position is not unconstitutional. Targeting Trump alone would be, but that's not what the law does.

 

Pardon? Are you referring to this?:

It's not "outside the state" AND "location unknown"

It's "outside the state" OR "location unknown"​

This isn’t a cut and paste. It’s my own words - an abbreviation to illustrate the difference between AND and OR - because you said “a person has to have been outside the state, AND his/her location unknown”. When you used those words, did I accuse you of doing a "very selective cut and paste to change the intent of the law"? No, because like me, you were abbreviating in your own words to make your point.

I did, however, point out that you were wrong - it’s "OR" not "AND" - using my abbreviation.

And it doesn’t change the meaning of the actual words, at all. Here they are:

(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.​

You have completely ignored two points in my previous post:

1. The clock is never “reset”. It pauses, and resumes where it left off.
   
   
2. The absence clause applies to Trump only in theory. In practice, it doesn’t. Per case law, among other things, tolling clauses pertain to those who are absent for the purpose of evading the law.

This, of course, explains why Vance has said that the statute of limitations is of “prime concern” - the clock is ticking.

This doesn’t mean the statute of limitations can’t be tolled for a president. Only that it would have to be through another mechanism, as with other specific individuals. And no one - from the Office of Legal Council (OLC) to Supreme Court justices, to Trump’s own legal counsel has ever suggested that a mechanism for tolling a President would in any way be unconstitutional. Rather, they have recommended that a mechanism be found.

And, as the OLC pointed out, for a president, the mechanism would have to account for the potentially very lengthy time that they might be immune from indictment. For instance, if a VP ascends to office and is then elected for two terms.

As things stand, any president can be rendered permanently above the law, being permanently immune from prosecution. Surely you don’t think that’s a good thing.

As your accusation is false, not at all.

I suggest you send your concerns to the Supreme Court, OLC, Trump’s own Counsel, as well as all the judges who exercise their power to toll the statutes for specific individuals, and so on and so forth. I’m sure they’ll be very interested to know why their opinions and actions are unconstitutional.

 

In effect that is what the law does. It won't fly.

 

Here's another article on the hearing this AM..... They discussed something which really needs to be considered, that Vance himself is the one delaying the subpoena.

SNIP
Perhaps most significantly for Trump, Leval indicated that the only thing stopping Vance from enforcing his subpoena on Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, was Vance himself. The DA has agreed with Trump to delay enforcement of the demand while Trump pursued appeals. The judge requested further briefing on the issue.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-runs-patience-fight-172300229.html

Seems to me, Vance has bent over backwards to allow the appeals process to go forward. My prediction is that ends with the ruling from this appeals court. Vance is going to enforce, unless the SCOTUS issues an emergency stay, which I'm not convinced they will.

 

You original statement left out the part where the Statute of Limitation clock could only be stopped for five years. If the crime that DA Vance alleged ended more then a year prior to the President taking office, and the law did not apply, then the statute of limitation will have run out. But if the law did apply, and the President get's reelected, then the statute of limitation extension of 5 years would also run out. Also, if the crime alleged crime ended four years before the President took office and the law applied, then the President could retire to Florida, and drag out the extradition process for a year. Then the limitation extension would run out, and he is still free. So, that limit on the extension is a game changer.

Further, you seemed to have missed my point. You point that the clock can never be reset is wrong. There is nothing in Section (4) that said that limitation clock does not reset. I draw your attention to the wording of the actual section (4) of CPL 30.10 yet again:

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.
https://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL030.10_30.10.html
(emphasis added by me.)

Need I tell you what part of that statute disproves your claim that the clock does not rest after each visit to the state? If the person is not continuously outside the state, or ( yes, I just said or) his location is not continuously unknown, then the section (4) extensions does not apply. Since the CPL sets due process for the state, a law changing due process for a single person is Unconstitutional.

Please, not that I did misread "and" and "or", but because of the part you ignored, it changed nothing. That extensions do not apply to the President. But you selectively edited the CPL to make it apply when it clearly does not. Which of us is worse? I will give you the final word on this matter.

 

Firstly, try and forget about Trump and Vance, because I suspect this personalization is clouding your judgment.

Secondly, what you are arguing for here is that a president - any president - should be protected from prosecution, or protected to the upmost degree possible, by letting the clock run until the opportunity to indict expires, at the very same time that they are immune from indictment. That, unlike anyone else, they should be able to commit crimes with impunity, knowing that the opportunity to indict will expire, or be close to expiration. Or in other words, that a president should be beyond the reach of the law. Astonishing.

Third, you are ignoring the (presumably inconvenient) fact that - as I have explained - IN PRACTICE the tolling provisions in section 4 do NOT apply to the president. As a result of which, your desire that a president be immune from prosecution to the greatest extent possible is fulfilled.

And this, of course, is why you want things to be left as they are. You think - remarkably - that that's perfectly ok.

What do you mean by “reset”? I’ve been presuming - perhaps wrongly - that you mean it goes back to zero. If so, then again, that’s not how it works. And, it doesn’t need to be stated in section 4 that the clock is not reset, because it’s self-evident through what it does say.

“The following periods shall not be included” means exactly that - the time when someone is continuously away or untraceable isn’t not counted when figuring out how much time is left on the clock. However, the time not counted can’t exceed 5 years.

So, if someone commits a crime in 2015, the timer, as it were, is loaded up with 5 years (say) and starts ticking towards an end point of 2020. Now if, in 2016, the person disappears or moves out of state, the clock is paused - at the one year mark. If they come back in 2019, the clock starts ticking again where it left off - at the one year mark. There are still four years left on the clock even though they have been away/untraceable for 3 years, and a new end date of 2023, at which point the clock will stop.

Because the amount of time not counted can’t exceed 5 years, the clock must stop ticking in 2025, regardless.

In short, at no point in the above is the clock “reset” to zero. It starts, pauses or stops.

You also need to be aware (as you underline it) that “continuously” doesn’t mean “unbroken”. Per case law, section 4 applies to absence even if it is broken up by one or several return visits. In other words, fugitives can’t nullify section 4 - claim that it doesn’t apply - by making trips back home.

The CPL doesn’t “set the due process” and, as the name suggests, statutes of limitation aren’t constitutional in nature. They’re statutory: optional legislation that can be introduced, changed, etc. at will.

And I’m wondering if you’re confounding the proposed bill with bills of attainder when you keep saying laws can’t be made for one person. Provided they’re not a bill of attainder they can (per the Supreme Court) and have been. Not to mention - which you have apparently chosen to ignore - the numerous other authorities I've cited who clearly disagree with you.

Finally, you need to quit the accusation of “selective editing” - it's a product of your (mis)perception. I have explained to you why that is not the case. If my explanation was not sufficiently clear, I can't help that. You need to have the good grace to take me at my word or, at the very least, stop making what is in fact a false accusation.