Was Trump guilty?

[Isaac]

The video below summarizes all of the attempts by the Democrats to persecute Trump.

Mark Levin: There's not a single legitimate charge against Trump | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin offers his analysis of the legal cases facing former President Donald Trump on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.'

www.foxnews.com

That's a lot of taxpayers expense toward ultimate failure

 

[moke123]

This temporary law is something I always thought of as highly suspicious. Create a law so you can convict Trump before the next round of elections, then remove the law. If they think the law has merit, why not keep that law? It makes no sense.

It does when you look at the history of the law rather than Pat's alternative facts.

Years ago NYS passed the children's survivors act. This allowed adults who were raped as children ( too young to sue ) to bring suit within a one year window. Somewhere in 2018-19, NYS raised the statute of limitations for sexual assault lawsuits from 3 years to 20 years. Since it was not retro active they later passed the Adult Survivors act with a one year window. More than half the cases brought were female prisoners who were raped in prison. Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams were also sued under the ASA, as was Bill Cosby. Nothing to do with citizen trump, as much as Pat wishes it so.

There are a ton of laws with sunset provisions. The Patriot act being one example.

 

[Jon]

It does when you look at the history of the law rather than Pat's alternative facts.

Years ago NYS passed the children's survivors act. This allowed adults who were raped as children ( too young to sue ) to bring suit within a one year window. Somewhere in 2018-19, NYS raised the statute of limitations for sexual assault lawsuits from 3 years to 20 years. Since it was not retro active they later passed the Adult Survivors act with a one year window. More than half the cases brought were female prisoners who were raped in prison. Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams were also sued under the ASA, as was Bill Cosby. Nothing to do with citizen trump, as much as Pat wishes it so.

There are a ton of laws with sunset provisions. The Patriot act being one example.

I think many Republicans will have a hard time believing it is not yet another persecution of Trump because:

a) The timing is highly suspicious, and especially when you also factor in the location. If Trump has an accusation against him for it to be in that particular state where they changed the law makes it a 50 to 1 chance.
b) You have a NYC DA campaigning to "get Trump." And that is before she has evidence. Corrupt.
c) If the law was used against other people too, that does not mean they didn't bring it in to get Trump.
d) It was modelled after the New York Child Victims Act. but to cover previous cases (your retro point), they went back 20 years in that law. So why have they gone back further in this law? Trump's alleged assault happened in 1995. I make that 28 years, not 20.
e) Since they believe that it is ok to go back 28 years, why don't they keep the law that way instead of stopping it? If they think it is ok to go back that far, surely there should not be a statute of limitations for these cases. Can you explain that to me?

 

[moke123]

a) The timing is highly suspicious, and especially when you also factor in the location. If Trump has an accusation against him for it to be in that particular state where they changed the law makes it a 50 to 1 chance.

trump was born and lived his whole life in NY. Wouldn't that effect the odds?

b) You have a NYC DA campaigning to "get Trump." And that is before she has evidence. Corrupt.

Would that be any different from someone campaigning on "getting John Gotti?" Or different from trump campaigning on "retribution" or "getting the Biden Crime family?' It's was a 2018 campaign and Michael Cohen was already singing.

c) If the law was used against other people too, that does not mean they didn't bring it in to get Trump.

Doesn't mean they did either. Think Boy Scouts and Alter Boys. With the 1500+ cases from former inmates the defendant is New York State and many more cases are against other NYS entities. That's a pretty steep price to pay just to help E. Jean Caroll sue trump.

d) It was modelled after the New York Child Victims Act. but to cover previous cases (your retro point), they went back 20 years in that law. So why have they gone back further in this law? Trump's alleged assault happened in 1995. I make that 28 years, not 20.

I think you misunderstood me. With our laws they have an effective date and sometimes an expiration date or sunset clause. With new laws they are only valid going forward unless they specifically make it retroactive

I believe prior to the CVA, the statute of limitations (SOL) to file civil suits was 5 years from their 18th birthday. The CVA extended that SOL to the victim reaching 55 years old to file suit. So effectively a 50+ year SOL. This didn't apply to old cases where the SOL already expired, so they created a one time, one year window for those victims to sue. It was later extended another year.

With adult victims, The prior SOL was 3 years. They extended the SOL for adult victims to 20 years to file suit but it wasn't retroactive. This also didn't apply to cases where the prior SOL (3 years) expired so they later passed the ASA to give those victims an opportunity to sue.

e) Since they believe that it is ok to go back 28 years, why don't they keep the law that way instead of stopping it? If they think it is ok to go back that far, surely there should not be a statute of limitations for these cases. Can you explain that to me?

50 states, 50 different laws. Some states don't have a SOL's on sex crimes and others have short ones. Other states have done the same or similar laws as the CVA and ASA so it's not really that novel. I don't believe the ASA had any restrictions on how far back the allegations could go.

 

[Jon]

trump was born and lived his whole life in NY. Wouldn't that effect the odds?

No, because it was the one state that made the change. It could have been any of the other 49 states that did it instead. So, 50 to 1.

Trump did not focus on getting the Biden crime family. He talks about the beautiful wall! Immigration! NATO fees! It seems that the DA made getting Trump central to being elected. Besides, even if he tried he couldn't make progress there. The DOJ and FBI are riddled with corrupt Democrats. Just look at all the text messages that go missing when trying to investigate corruption in the FBI. Look at all the sackings when people got found out.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It does when you look at the history of the law rather than Pat's alternative facts.

So, the law didn't expire again after they brought the fabricated case against Trump?

 

[Jon]

So, the law didn't expire again after they brought the fabricated case against Trump?

This is kinda my point. Why let the law expire if you think it is ok to go back 30 odd years? What logic goes behind the reasoning that a temporary reprieve makes sense, rather than a permanent one? I cannot see it.

To me, it makes no sense to say, "In 2023 you can go back 30 years, in 2024 you cannot."

 

[Pat Hartman]

Nothing the Democrats do has to make sense. It only has to further their cause.

My opinion of the Democrats changed for the worse ~ 3 years ago when I watched the video of the applause and cheering on the NY state house floor as their abortion during labor bill passed.

Only someone truly evil would think that abortion in the delivery room is even rational let alone something to cheer about. No society that kills its children at birth if they are inconvenient deserves to survive. History is going to look harshly at these current times.

 

[Isaac]

This is kinda my point. Why let the law expire if you think it is ok to go back 30 odd years? What logic goes behind the reasoning that a temporary reprieve makes sense, rather than a permanent one? I cannot see it.

To me, it makes no sense to say, "In 2023 you can go back 30 years, in 2024 you cannot."

To the Democrat mind, remember that laws are a lot like money when it comes to solutions. We don't need to better use or enforce the ones we have, we just need MORE new ones. Always more and more and more new ones with committees and more government employee jobs to match

 

[Isaac]

This is kinda my point. Why let the law expire if you think it is ok to go back 30 odd years? What logic goes behind the reasoning that a temporary reprieve makes sense, rather than a permanent one? I cannot see it.

To me, it makes no sense to say, "In 2023 you can go back 30 years, in 2024 you cannot."

New York legislators, please take note: THIS is how you use your power to make retroactive laws especially for one particular situation! This actually makes sense.