Statute of limitations on Trump over Stormy Daniels

but NY can still proceed.

People who say that the federal statute of limitations has run out regarding Trump and Stormy Daniels may be accurate. But when they say it about Bragg, which I have seen, they are incorrect.

The reason that I checked on it is because I had read so many times how Bragg had let the time run out and could not understand how he could be sending it to a grand jury if that was true.

Five years and ran out last October 27.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/time-is-running-out-to-indict-donald-trump-for-his-sex-hush-money-payment-to-stormy-daniels

competent about anything that Trump repeats, this is the sliver that IS true--even if he is confused on NY state laws. Honestly, it may be a bit of motivation for Bragg to go all the way now and that is a good thing.

I suppose if Garland had tried to pick up an already-clearly-laid-out case and get it through before time was up, that would have looked too political.

pursue when he was confirmed as AG? Like no other criminal cases to investigate and prosecute that were more urgent? No corrupt DOJ to clean out? No other priority but Stormy and Donald.

It doesn't take too long to assign the job to a few people and say, "go!".

Common people's misdeeds don't get so easily lost in the shuffle.

were Trump loyalists embedded in DOJ by Trump.

I have no reason to believe, even if I had the highest opinion of Garland, that he has, or can, change all of the deep-seated problems at DoJ when it comes to holding the powerful and connected accountable for their crimes, a problem that goes back even further than Trump and Barr making things worse.

saying is that Bragg shut down Pomerantz and Dunne's case, which Pomerantz and Dunne said was solid and ready to go to court.

Which is what Bragg did.

It was Garland who let the Federal statute run out.

and allegedly weighing whether to take it to a grand jury, is a CYA operation because Pomerantz's book on the matter is coming our very soon.

Bragg may be in deep doo-doo.

He sent all Pomerantz and Dunne's exhibits back where they came from. How is he going to a grand jury without those?

"People are saying....."

Some people say...

had a dispute over which charges to file. P and D wanted to go with the lesser charge of falsifying business records. Bragg wanted to go for fraud.

Bragg has since won his case on the falsified business records. Now he is going after the Stormy Daniels case.

Looks like Bragg is advancing cases against Trump, step by step.

Convictions more possible!

...I don't think they had more than Cohen's word to go on, and Vance obviously didn't believe that was enough to indict. I'd guess that neither did Garland when he looked at the case in '21.

Barb McQuade says: "It may be that they have been able to uncover objective evidence that corroborates it...that makes him feel this is a stronger case than they did back when Alvin Bragg first came to office."

And they now have the cooperation of Pecker, granted immunity by DOJ. Also, Weisselberg, facing big jail time, and is said in reports to have falsified the Daniels hush money payment as a “legal expense” paid to Michael Cohen, may have talked.

cannot be charged for one reason or another. Since the DOJ feels they cannot charge a sitting president with a crime, then the statute of limitations should be frozen while that person is in office.

crafted legal opinion that dates to the whole Nixon-Spiro Agnew legal debacles. It has become a tradition and one DOJ has not chosen to revisit it even though many former prosecutors and scholars have called for them to do so. Given there is no court review of any law upholding a "no prosecution of sitting President" standard, it would be difficult to enact changes in these statutes of limitations Federal laws to allow for a "pause." Of course, states can if they have laws that run parallel to the Federal law (as NY does in this instance).

in not challenging the DOJ memo. How do you think this partisan Supreme Court would have ruled, then it would have been codified.

Even if they concluded that a sitting President COULD be prosecuted, that does not mean that Mueller HAD to pursue charges, but rather could still have chosen to defer until after out of office as he essentially did. A revisit of a LOC opinion does not, on its own, trigger a possible SCOTUS review sans further action that leads to an indictment. Given he could not (at the time) prove CONSPIRACY, he was wise not to. Though there is further evidence today that suggests it should have been looked at again once out of office--obviously it is subsumed by all the other civil and criminal investigations. Mueller was not at all involved in the Stormy Daniels issue so I refer to the Russia investigation--the only area where he could have pursued an indictment. Neither Bill Barr or his predecessor were going to do so in the Stormy case, that's for sure so that is academic.

But there are two issues at play that really should not have been conflated, though timing is everything.

No one said that the statute of limitations ran out for the state.

If Mueller prosecutes "individual one" I guarantee that Trump would have appealed that to the Supreme Court.

Merrick Garland was confirmed in March, I believe he had about 6 months to prosecute Trump before the time ran out.

I'm sorry if you aren't following my threads, but I have included a detailed discussion on the individual issues and links when appropriate to support my points. I honestly and sincerely do not know what more you want.

The SOL for NY State is a separate discussion than that for the FEDERAL level, but when you throw Trump's lawyers' arguments in the mix, it seems clear they are talking about the FEDERAL SOL. SO I discussed that to clear up any confusion in my FIRST post. Likewise, it probably is impacting Bragg's change of heart to pursue it now after initially apparently deciding to defer, so it is related.

The issue with the DOJ LOC opinion on whether or not you can indict a sitting president is another separate issue that I addressed when a poster (Poiuyt) brought it up. Separate issues. As is any potential SCOTUS opinion if and when that memo is changed, ignored, and some AG sometime POTENTIALLY decides to indict a sitting President.

The Mueller issue is likewise related but separate on the decision not to proceed regardless of the LOC decision, given Mueller was out of time and had not been able to prove CONSPIRACY (collusion is not a legal concept).

I enjoy discussing things with you gab13by13, but sometimes it appears you create unrelated arguments without reading prior posts or that reframe my comments totally. Maybe you just feel like arguing for the heck of it. We probably all do so sometimes. Likewise, perhaps that is not intentional...

Regardless, have a good day as I am back to work.

Why bring up Conspiracy? The topic is about prosecuting "individual one."

As far as why Trump brought up SOL I am not going to try to get into his head. I believe we are all clear here re: SOL.

😊

in the context of the LOC opinion and whether SCOTUS would decide against it--all of which came as a result of bringing up the Federal Statute of Limitations and the previous poster's concerns about those lapsing on a sitting President without a pause--whether the Stormy Daniel case or the Mueller investigation. Neither Barr nor Jeff Sessions were ever going to indict or pursue the former, so I was referring to your bringing up Mueller, whose only possible indictment would have been over Russia.

I give up. Mueller could NOT have brought charges on the Russia investigation as per the Mueller report because he would have had to have proven CONSPIRACY. Collusion as discussed throughout by the MSM is NOT a federal indictable charge. So when YOU brought up Mueller and the LOC and SCOTUS, I tried to explain why it is academic only. Mueller could not without more time and more investigation have charged Trump. So the LOC opinion is irrelevant.

You apparently just can't understand my discussion despite multiple attempts to clarify to you and I'm sorry that that is the case. I did my best. If in the future you find you don't understand my posts despite my sincere attempts to explain, feel free to pass them by. I like nothing less than an argument based on a repeated misunderstanding where it feels that there is a decided and intentional attempt not to follow.

Alvin Bragg is the District Attorney for Manhattan County, NY. Anything Merrick Garland says to his attorneys has no bearing on Alvin Bragg. Also anything Bill Barr said or did has nothing to do with the prosecution of crimes in Manhattan.

Garland's office in New York City (Manhattan) is called SDNY (Southern District of New York). It is a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and their job is to investigate and prosecute federal crimes.

Alvin Bragg = Manhattan DA
Merrick Garland = U.S. DA
Letitia James = State DA (but her office is in Albany)

That two independent authorities could have brought charges on the Stormy Daniels case with one (FEDS) no longer able to due to a lapse of statute of limitations that has NOT occurred in the NY state case is what has apparently confused a lot of folks.