NY lawmakers propose law to prevent Trump from avoiding prosecution

I can't speak for how they feel, but they are just selling the same product. My guess would be his association to Obama is a perceived strength. It didn't help Hillary!

 

If that were true, they wouldn't need this loophole covering law.

They've included everyone who cannot be indicted based on their current job. It's a very small subset...

 

So, a statute of limitation that applies to everyone in the country would not apply to the President Of the United States? You actually believe that would fly Constitutionally? I seriously doubt it. Do your realize that a person that leaves the country for someplace that has no extradition treaty with the US would have more rights then a sitting President. Hardly seem equitable to me.

 

It's a rare treat watching you attempt to spin this... An abject failure, but a treat nonetheless...

 

Translation: Liberal looney ideology. You are wrong because I don't believe you. State your reason for calling my statement "abject failure".

You might want to note that there is already judicial remedy in place. The New York state Government could try the president in Absentia. That means that the President would not have to be present in court at the time of the trial. That way they could circumvent the Statutes of Limitation. So, the only thing that is actually a "abject failure" is that the NY State legislature is pushing a bill through that is unconstitutional and unnecessary. It looks to me that the bill is nothing more then a political grandstand designed to make the President look bad.

 

Right... Try him in absentia... then I can listen to you moan about not being able to face his accusers....

The bill is necessary to ensure Trump cannot run the clock out on DA Vance, like he's done for the past 14 months... It will pass and it's certainly constitutional...

 

Show me a law that the SCOTUS has ever found constitutional that singles out a single person, while excluding all others, for prosecution. While your at it, I still want you to tell me how this law does not give a person fleeing jurisdiction more rights then a sitting President. I am waiting for your legal opinion.

 

This law doesnt single out a specific person..it singles out a specific job..

A person fleeing the US has no US rights.. a sitting president has all his rights, and then some..

When he's done being president, the clock on his crimes starts again..

 

A specific job that is unique to one person at a time. Therefore a single person. How many POTUS are there in the United States at any one time? Note, former Presidents are not a POTUS.

Let's say a person shoplifts a pack of gum from a bodega in New York City, and then flees the country. Thirteen months later, he returns to New York City. Because the Statute of Limitation for petty theft in New York is one year, the person can not be charged with the crime. So, how does this person not have more rights then a President under this proposed law?

So far, you have shown that you have no knowledge of the subject matter, Let's try harder.

 

Why?? You are so far behind the argument, what's left to be done...

Also, what I highlighted is really dumb... You do need to try harder...

Also also, I love the concept of somebody fleeing the country for stealing gum... Grand Theft Moron... your hypotheticals never fail to amuse..

 

My hypothetical is realistic. You are running away from it because you have no answer. You have failed. Moving on.

 

Funny, that's what Republicans say about all laws when "the left" calls the laws "racist".

 

Actually, that person could be charged with the crime on their return to New York.

Under NY criminal procedure law, the limitations clock doesn't tick while someone is absent from the state (deliberately or otherwise) or while their whereabouts are unknown, up to a maximum pause time of five years. Same applies to most states, with variations - some don't impose a time limit on pauses; a few limit them to those fleeing justice rather than people who are simply absent or untraceable, etc.

Plus federally, Section 3290 of criminal procedure code - "Fugitives from Justice" - states that "No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice", with case law establishing that the intent to evade justice is proven.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3290

 

The federal code only applies to federal jurisdictions. It does not apply to the state courts. So, do you have a link to the New York State that states that Statute of Limitations do not count if a person flees jurisdiction?

 

Sure.

 

Wish I had had the time to accurately shoot down that ridiculous hypothetical about fleeing the jurisdiction for stealing gum (??), but somebody smart is always around to feed the alt-right answers to their distractions..

I suspect you feel that adding POTUS time to the SOL is not some huge effort to personally attack Trump?

Even though he's obviously the cause of tightening this loophole that nobody thought existed...

 

As you say, the only way in which it's "personal" is that Trump brought the loopholes to light. But the loopholes are real and ones he'd certainly exploit. As such, it's entirely legitimate, and covering all the bases - civil as well as criminal. Guess they plan to get busy.

 

I stand corrected, but that still does not make the proposed law Constitutional.

 

Why not?

 

As I have already pointed out, the law is tailored to apply to only one person. The President of the United States. Since, only one person fills that position at anytime, then the law only applies to one person. Constitutionally, a law can not be tailored so exclusively.

 

Still wrong... even with time over the weekend to think it over...

 

According to what, exactly?

 

It shouldn’t be necessary. The president should not have any immunity from prosecution while in office. That way - as you say - the criminal law will apply to everyone.

 

That would be crazy. There would be an endless parade of charges against every president from the opposing party. Politics, after all, is humanity at its worst.

 

That is kind of what is being argued here though, that because the president enjoys such broad protections during their term any legal penalties or cases should be allowed to be extended after their term ends.

People are arguing it is unconstitutional to have a rule that targets just the president but they have always had numerous laws and protections that only impact them. Argument that one is unconstitutional means the others should be also.