As a nonexpert in NY criminal procedure, I was curious about why any of Trump's falsified-business-records-porn-star-hush-money charges wouldn't be outside NY's 5 year (for the felony) and 2 year (for the misdemeanor) statue of limitations. The offenses allegedly occurred in 2017. But NY stops the clock for periods where the defendant is continuously out of state. Had he moved back to NYC instead of FL after leaving the WH, he might have beaten the misdemeanor rap.
Note that paying hush money to a porn star does not, as far as I can tell, in an of itself violate NY law. But falsifying records to cover up the fact that you're paying hush money to a porn star does.
(I just like writing "paying hush money to a porn star" in relation to Trump. It makes me smile).
@mattblaze It's more complicated than that. Falsifying those records would only be a misdemeanor, unless it's to cover up another crime. Here, that other crime is election law violations—the DA's office is claiming that the intent of the payments was to aid his campaign, making it an illegal campaign contribution.
Didn't it happen long before the payoff? So it would be hard to argue that suddenly, years later, he wanted to hide it from his wife.
For reasons other than him running for President? Are you thinking of MeToo, say? But she's never claimed he harassed her afaik, just that they had commercial sex.
@mattblaze @ceoln@qoto.org @kentborg @SteveBellovin
And then the appeals!
Rinse and repeat.
@mattblaze
"The truth is these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand"
@ceoln @kentborg @SteveBellovin
@ceoln @SteveBellovin @mattblaze @kentborg at the time he was covering it up, “having a liaison with a porn star” would plausibly have lost him the election (which lest we forget, he barely won). It’s only in retrospect that it seems minor.
@copito @ceoln @SteveBellovin @kentborg
I doubt that very much. It was completely on brand for trump, and much more damaging stuff (such as the Inside Hollywood recording) had already been made public.
@ceoln @mattblaze @SteveBellovin @kentborg my point is that it wouldn’t have had to shifted many people’s votes, and if it extended Access Hollywood news cycle that’s one plausible mechanism. Let’s put it this way, if he had narrowly lost instead of narrowly won, and Stormy Daniels story were known then everyone would say it was obviously decisive.
@copito @ceoln @mattblaze @SteveBellovin @kentborg
Yep. In the context of the recently released Access Hollywood, tRUmp was pretty concerned about more damage. The tax deduction was remarkably stupid, and, as said, remarkably on brand for him.
@ceoln @kentborg @mattblaze @SteveBellovin sure, that’s what we say in retrospect, but fact remains that he barely won and not everybody that voted for him was all in. Is your true view that there was no possible news which would have cost home a few thousand votes in key states?
@kentborg @SteveBellovin @ceoln @copito Rationally (and granted, that’s giving him a lot of credit), to the extent people would talk about a consensual liaison with Daniels instead of the Access Hollywood recording, that would have probably been a net positive for him.
@SteveBellovin @ceoln @kentborg @mattblaze I’m not saying your point of view is implausible, just that mine is also plausible. Had the story come out, I think we can both agree it would have been pretty big news. I think that news might have been bad for Trump (as did Trump and David Pecker) and that it wouldn’t have taken much bad news to shift the election.
@kentborg @ceoln @SteveBellovin I think relevant motivation is on the part of the payer. If the payer intended it to help Trump's campaign, and especially if Trump solicited it or knew that when accepting it, that's extremely damning.
@kentborg @ceoln @SteveBellovin In other words, the question is not so much "why was Trump happy about this" as "what did Trump understand was going on".
@ceoln @kentborg @SteveBellovin
The whole thing seems like such an unforced error. In the hierarchy of tawdriness and political scandal:
"Having a liaison with a porn star" -> Eyebrow raised, maybe.
"Paying hush money to cover up having a liaison with a porn star." -> Several news cycles of lurid speculation and mocking.
"Falsifying records to cover up paying hush money to cover up having a liaison with a porn star." -> All of the above, plus criminal charges.