Manhattan DA sends scathing response to GOP’s request for testimony

[BlueTex]

Its called tolling. The idea is that somebody should not be able escape prosecution because they were able to hide from the law.
However, everyone knows Trump was and the failure of the DA to bring charges is not Trump's problem.

LOL.... Is Trump subject to the same tolling as every other criminal in New York?

New York Tolls Legal Deadlines In Response to COVID-19 | JD Supra

One of the many lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic is the lengthy tolling of statutes of limitations and legal deadlines. On March 20, 2020,...

www.jdsupra.com

 

[Athanasius68]

LOL.... Is Trump subject to the same tolling as every other criminal in New York?

New York Tolls Legal Deadlines In Response to COVID-19 | JD Supra

One of the many lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic is the lengthy tolling of statutes of limitations and legal deadlines. On March 20, 2020,...

www.jdsupra.com

As the cite points out, there is legal uncertainty toward the deadlines. The courts need to clear it up.

Which goes back to what has been said earlier: If a former president and current candidate form office is going to be charged with a crime (and especially from political opponents) the allegation needs to be clear and unambiguous.

 

[Paradoxical]

Do you think for some reason that the prosecutors haven't seen that?

I'm sure they did and that's the problem. They hoped no one else would. You know, like Pelosi hoping the real videos wouldn't ever be seen so she could gaslight.

 

[BlueTex]

As the cite points out, there is legal uncertainty toward the deadlines. The courts need to clear it up.

Which goes back to what has been said earlier: If a former president and current candidate form office is going to be charged with a crime (and especially from political opponents) the allegation needs to be clear and unambiguous.

It has been cleared up.... Trump loses again...

https://lewisbrisbois.com/assets/uploads/files/NY_Appellate_Division_decision_and_order_on_EOs_-_June_2021.pdf

It's almost like Bragg and his office know what the hell they are doing in spite of the "legal experts" on DP...

 

[Paradoxical]

So why did Cohen send Clifford the money? If it wasn't hush money, what was it? Was he buying signed copies of her movies? How did he even know that Clifford existed in the Trump 'realm'? The above letter makes no sense at all.

Ask the obese Bragg. The letter is authentic. Additionally, Stormy said there was never a sexual relationship with Trump.

This is what happens when a Soros appointee runs amok.

 

[Paradoxical]

Yeah, that should shut it down. Trump’s attorney saying he was innocent. That’s what every attorney is paid to say.

I believe the attorney that wrote that letter was COHEN'S attorney.

 

[Athanasius68]

It has been cleared up.... Trump loses again...

https://lewisbrisbois.com/assets/uploads/files/NY_Appellate_Division_decision_and_order_on_EOs_-_June_2021.pdf

It's almost like Bragg and his office know what the hell they are doing in spite of the "legal experts" on DP...

It has been cleared up.... Trump loses again...

https://lewisbrisbois.com/assets/uploads/files/NY_Appellate_Division_decision_and_order_on_EOs_-_June_2021.pdf

It's almost like Bragg and his office know what the hell they are doing in spite of the "legal experts" on DP...

New York County is in the 1st Judicial Department of NY state.
The link above concerns the 2nd Judicial Dept of Ny State.
As Note 226 points out, that decision is not binding on other judicial department in NY state
Bragg is making an argument that it should.

Which goes back to the proposition that prosecuting former presidents etc should be based upon clear and unambiguous allegations. Bragg has neither.

 

[BlueTex]

New York County is in the 1st Judicial Department of NY state.
The link above concerns the 2nd Judicial Dept of Ny State.
As Note 226 points out, that decision is not binding on other judicial department in NY state
Bragg is making an argument that it should.

Which goes back to the proposition that prosecuting former presidents etc should be based upon clear and unambiguous allegations. Bragg has neither.

Two recent decisions of the Appellate Division, First Department have brought clarity for practitioners and unity among the Judicial Departments. In Murphy v. Harris, a decision issued on Nov. 1, 2022, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint on Feb. 12, 2021 on two additional defendants. 210 A.D.3d 410, 411 (1st Dept. 2022). The plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim accrued on Sept. 30, 2018, with a two-year statute of limitation. Id. The defendants argued that Executive Order No. 202.8 and the subsequent executive orders constituted a suspension rather than a toll and that service of the amended complaint was untimely. Id. The court rejected this argument, citing Brash and Roach, holding that the executive orders “constituted a toll of the applicable statute of limitations.” Id.


Therefore, when the plaintiffs’ claim was tolled on March 20, 2020 it had a remaining limitations period of more than six months, which started to run again on Nov. 3, 2020. Their claim was thus timely when filed on Feb. 12, 2021.

Importantly, the First Department concurred with the Second Department’s holding in Brash that then-Governor Cuomo had statutory authority to toll statutes of limitations under Executive Law §29-a(2)(d), which provides that the governor may “alter or modify” a statute, concluding that the tolling of time limitations set by statute is included within that authority. Id.

The court further agreed with Brash that even though the executive orders subsequent to Executive Order No. 202.8 did not all use the word “toll,” those executive orders continued “the suspensions, and modifications of law” made in the prior executive orders, including the toll expressly put in place by Executive Order No. 202.8. Id.


More recently, on Dec. 29, 2022, the First Department issued another decision reiterating its holding in Murphy. In New York City Transit Authority v. American Transit Ins. Co., the petitioner’s cause of action accrued on March 5, 2020, and the court ruled that the one-year statute of limitations was tolled by Executive Order No. 202.8 on March 20, 2020 until Nov. 3, 2020, when the remaining 350 days on the limitations period began to run again, expiring on Oct. 20, 2021. Thus, the petition filed on Oct. 19, 2021 was timely. — N.Y.S.3d —-, 2022 WL 17981556, N.Y. Slip Op. 07508 (1st Dept. 2022).

For Whom the Bell Tolls: COVID Executive Orders Are Still Being Interpreted | Law.com

Uncertainty has persisted as to how the First Department would apply the tolling period resulting from then-Governor Andrew Cuomo's Executive Order No. 202.8. Two recent decisions of the Appellate Division, First Department have brought clarity for practitioners and unity among the Judicial...

www.law.com

 

[Peacenik]

Manhattan DA sends scathing response to GOP’s request for testimony

Alvin Bragg’s office said the GOP’s request is “ unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty.”

www.axios.com

--

Looks like NYDA Bragg isn't having any of Speaker McCarthy's House investigation into the NYDA Trump Investigation.

The NYDA Office General Counsel seems to be declaring the Jim Jordan's requests unconstitutional, which would seem to now leave the ball in McCarthy's court (no pun intended). Though I really don't see what power McCarthy has in the matter.

My opinion: The Manhattan DA's Office is a large, experienced, and toughened Prosecutors' Office commonly dealing with large cases and events at the highest levels of the World Stage, including on international cases involving foreign countries & governments - as exemplified by their recent probe into Deutsche Bank (which also was Trump's related). I don't think Kevin McCarthy is going to have an easy time with this.

This is what happens when good people fail to get informed and vote; and instead let extremists empower appeasers.

 

[American]

Remember, it's big government until the Republicans do it. Then it's OK.

Says a Democrat who supports eliminating the debt ceiling. Tell me it ain't true.

 

[American]

McCarthy's killing himself to NOT lose the speakership; trying to keep everyone in his party somewhat happy

What was Pelosi doing? Yeah, thought so.

 

[CaughtInThe]

None of this shit is normal.

 

[The AntiDonald]

My understanding is that the fact he was a sitting President who could not be indicted was used to extend the Statute of limitations. Trump can't have it both ways......protection from being charged used as part of elapsed time in bringing those charges.

It's more than just that work around. There is also the fact that if Bragg is using the fraud statute, he has 6 years to bring it. The statute doesn't begin until the crime stops. Trump was writing checks from the WH well into 2017. With another extension due to Covid. I trust Bragg has figured out his prosecution or he wouldn't be bringing it.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

That's not what Rawley said.

You're right. What he wrote was that the DA doing his job was "interference in the election."

You and Rawley must be whom Trump was referring to when he declared that he could shoot someone and he wouldn't lose any votes. In other words, you would never hold Trump accountable for anything. You know, because he's a presidential candidate and it's just not right to charge him with a crime while he's a candidate.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Manhattan DA sends scathing response to GOP’s request for testimony

Alvin Bragg’s office said the GOP’s request is “ unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty.”

www.axios.com

--

Looks like NYDA Bragg isn't having any of Speaker McCarthy's House investigation into the NYDA Trump Investigation.

The NYDA Office General Counsel seems to be declaring the Jim Jordan's requests unconstitutional, which would seem to now leave the ball in McCarthy's court (no pun intended). Though I really don't see what power McCarthy has in the matter.

My opinion: The Manhattan DA's Office is a large, experienced, and toughened Prosecutors' Office commonly dealing with large cases and events at the highest levels of the World Stage, including on international cases involving foreign countries & governments - as exemplified by their recent probe into Deutsche Bank (which also was Trump's related). I don't think Kevin McCarthy is going to have an easy time with this.

Bragg needs to charge McCarthy and the rest of the scum with obstruction of justice.

 

[jgarden47]

It's just Jim Jordan being Jim Jordan. All hat, no cattle. However, he has accomplished what he wanted. The Trumpers will have heard him and will never hear Bragg's legitimate response. They will be told Bragg is simply not cooperating.

Let Jordan and his "DEPLORABLES" take Bragg to court - given Trump's judicial "track-record" the outcome is predictable!

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I'm sure they did and that's the problem. They hoped no one else would. You know, like Pelosi hoping the real videos wouldn't ever be seen so she could gaslight.

That's nonsense. That's why there is appellate system. Just in case an incompetent judge gets bamboozled by a slick, fast-talking DA.

And as far as your reference to 'real videos' goes, we didn't need those. We watched it live in real time.

 

[Paradoxical]

That's nonsense. That's why there is appellate system. Just in case an incompetent judge gets bamboozled by a slick, fast-talking DA.

And as far as your reference to 'real videos' goes, we didn't need those. We watched it live in real time.

You watched a small group of people breaking in is all, on a loop 24/7 from the J6 committee and when the REAL videos were shown, you buried your heads in the sand.

 

[Paradoxical]

Let Jordan and his "DEPLORABLES" take Bragg to court - given Trump's judicial "track-record" the outcome is predictable!

I was looking in the stupid meme for the letter from Cohen's OWN attorney where he said that the money was not to payoff Stormy Daniels. Maybe you could Google it? Better yet, review my posts for it.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Congress has no 'jurisdiction' in criminal matters at all.

But that's your answer. It's either OK for congress to demand information from prosecutors, or not.

During an ongoing investigation? Seriously? Before anyone has been charged? Seriously?

 

[MTAtech]

In 2016, Mr. Trump was a political candidate. He could say what he wishes.
It should of course be noted that no charges were filed against Mrs. Clinton by the Trump DOJ.

No charges because the Attorney General reviewed everything and determined there were no chargeable crimes. That's far different than now, where there are a number of crimes in plain sight.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The defendant did not claim that Trump incited him to do anything.
It was Judge Mehta opinion this is what happened.

In should be pointed out that Lolas was not charged with any acts of violence-- he was simply charged with unlawfully (yet evidently, peacefully) protesting inside the Capitol Building.
The DOJ could be asked why he was charged, whereas those who demonstrated unlawfully (yet evidently peacefully) in front of SCOTUS justices homes were not (after all, those protests led to an attempted assassination of a justice).


That's right. The defendant said Trump was responsible and that he incited him to do what he did. Both the prosecutor and the judge said no Trump did not.






The DOJ was not party to this litigation. However, since it has an interest in ensuring that the incitement laws are properly applied, the court asked for their opinion.
And they dodged.

In their brief, the DOJ said that it was theoretically possible the plaintiffs could make an argument that what Trump said could have incited the crowd to do what they did.
However, it is an argument that the DOJ itself has never made in court, and as the above cited cases show, an argument they rejected when J6 defendants have raised it.



The DOJ argued that Trump is not responsible for what the the defendants did.
Criminal solicitation is about saying and doing things that causes somebody else to do something unlawfully.

I suggest you review the case of California vs Charles Manson.

In that case, EVERYONE agrees Manson was nowhere near the scene of the grisly murders when they occured. Nevertheless, Manson had such control over his followers that they would do whatever he told them to do. That did not mitigate what they did (they were convicted of murder) and it did not prevent the prosecution from obtaining a murder conviction for Manson himself.

 

[Callen]

It is quite remarkable the number of people who think Trump is being charged for political reasons yet never really say Trump didn't commit crimes. Only that he shouldn't be prosecuted because he is an ex president and a candidate for office. Why on earth is that sufficient reason to commit crimes with impunity? Trump broke the law and if a jury finds probable cause then he should be prosecuted like anyone else would be. Stop finding excuses for his behavior and let him own it!

 

[Emlee]

The defendant did not claim that Trump incited him to do anything.
It was Judge Mehta opinion this is what happened.

In should be pointed out that Lolas was not charged with any acts of violence-- he was simply charged with unlawfully (yet evidently, peacefully) protesting inside the Capitol Building.
The DOJ could be asked why he was charged, whereas those who demonstrated unlawfully (yet evidently peacefully) in front of SCOTUS justices homes were not (after all, those protests led to an attempted assassination of a justice).


That's right. The defendant said Trump was responsible and that he incited him to do what he did. Both the prosecutor and the judge said no Trump did not.






The DOJ was not party to this litigation. However, since it has an interest in ensuring that the incitement laws are properly applied, the court asked for their opinion.
And they dodged.

In their brief, the DOJ said that it was theoretically possible the plaintiffs could make an argument that what Trump said could have incited the crowd to do what they did.
However, it is an argument that the DOJ itself has never made in court, and as the above cited cases show, an argument they rejected when J6 defendants have raised it.



The DOJ argued that Trump is not responsible for what the the defendants did.
Criminal solicitation is about saying and doing things that causes somebody else to do something unlawfully.

You’re clearly spinning and twisting in a desperate need to try to claim Trump had no part in inciting, or anything that happened that day, trying make it appear that the DOJ and judges proved that Trump had nothing to do with what transpired, and that’s completely false.

Whatever your desperate need is to make excuses for Trump at all costs is your issue, however the bottom line is that judges and DOJ have not said that Trump didn’t not incite or that Trump had no responsibility. Bottom line is that in spite of Trump’s actions defendant was still guilty and couldn’t use that as a get out of jail free card. There is a big difference.

 

[Emlee]

That's ok.
The counter-narrative to the J6 committee is that Trump is involved in none of this. And when defendants have tried to drag him into, prosecutors have objected and judges have agreed.

Spinning again.