Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Keep in mind: this was literally the last case anybody who has been following his legal issues expected to go this far.

The legal theory involved is untested, and depends on proving he knew it was illegal and was done to influence his campaign, both are difficult to prove.

Just noticed this, but I think this is at least partially untrue? Part of what's on the line in regards to the hush money is an airtight misdemeanor charge -- as in, "both trump and some of his legal crew has already confessed to it on record" level of airtight.

The iffier bit is whether it can or cannot be escalated into a felony, from what I understand, and if it is possible, the evidence and legal path for it isn't nearly as public facing and obvious. At a base level the man's absolutely, 100%, provably with publicly available information, guilty of crimes in relation to the hush money payment. The whole of that case might be untested, but part of it is ironclad; if there's not some kind of settlement/plea deal, there's pretty damn certain to be a criminal conviction, if maybe not a felony one.

The Statute of Limitations for misdemeanors is 2 years, so the prosecution needs a felony. 
Even arguing the entire time of Trump's Presidency plus COVID tolls part of that time period, the misdemeanor is too old.

New wrinkle: Trump could just stay in Florida, and New York couldn't touch him.

[pisskop]

It's all positioning.  At best they hold this up for a day or two, but this is largely just a good chance to make waves and get publicity.

Unfortunately it's the kind of move that stands out and galvanizes, and these days I think both parties are attracted to extremism.  Desantis ultimately wants to be the incumbent, so if he can look like he's protecting Trump he can appear strong while weakening Trump.  I think actively refusing to hand Trump over and Trump accepting this protection would be suicide for the former and for the latter an amusement but ultimately just buys him time.

[Frumple]

Statue of limitations applies to the start of the investigation, not the time of indictment. It's clear even for a misdemeanor, far as I've noticed. There's been a fair amount of reporting that there's quite a lot more going on than a single misdemeanor charge, though.

New wrinkle: Trump could just stay in Florida, and New York couldn't touch him.

There's pretty much zero chance of this, though, even if trump decides not to cooperate. The extradition stuff on the books predates deshitis and is still in effect, asshole's bloviating and both can't and won't stop the USSS from hauling trump up north if it comes to that. The only wrinkle is governor shitheel grifting a bit, which is less wrinkle than "it's a day of the week ending in y".

[EuchreJack]

Statue of limitations applies to the start of the investigation, not the time of indictment. It's clear even for a misdemeanor, far as I've noticed. There's been a fair amount of reporting that there's quite a lot more going on than a single misdemeanor charge, though.

You are mistaking civil law for criminal law. In criminal law, it's date of indictment.

A criminal action must be commenced within the period of limitation
prescribed in the ensuing subdivisions of this section.

The indictment is the commencement of the action.

I am eager to see former Governor Cuomo's Covid Tolling discussed.  That was a clusterfuck, and now everyone is going to see it.

[Duuvian]

In the coming days I will post a critique of the RESTRICT Act. I have finally got around to reading the text of the bill, and it appears to be an absolute disaster. I fully urge political opposition to this bill.

[Micro102]

From what I've heard, you can get 20 years in prison for using a VPN and accessing banned websites? This just seems like the PATRIOT Act all over again. "Look out for these bad people! We will protect you by giving ourselves insane amounts of power over your lives and not actually solve any problem!"

[Lord Shonus]

That's a feared "WHAT ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO DO!!" extension, not actual bill text. The actual text of the bill covers

(a) In general.—The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines—

(1) poses an undue or unacceptable risk of—

(A) sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology products and services in the United States;

(B) catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States;

(C) interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

(D) coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

Which can be enforced against

(6) ENTITY.—The term “entity” means any of the following, whether established in the United States or outside of the United States:

(A) A firm.

(B) A government, government agency, government department, or government commission.

(C) A labor union.

(D) A fraternal or social organization.

(E) A partnership.

(F) A trust.

(G) A joint venture.

(H) A corporation.

(I) A group, subgroup, or other association or organization whether or not organized for profit.

By the bill text, the proposed rules are not enforcable against an individual accessing a prohibited service, by VPN or otherwise, unless said individual is doing so as part of an organization carrying out specific types of activities. Individual penalties of the sort you mention are enumerated, but "any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under this Act, including any of the unlawful acts described in paragraph (2)." can only apply to activities undertaken by groups. If TikTok is (justifiably) banned, accessing it via VPN will not qualify unless you're doing so in order to help commit acts of insurrection. Even the vast majority of critics agree this is what the bill actually says, they're just insisting that some judge is going to decide to ignore that and allow the government to do whatever they want.

The primary target of the bill, explicit in the text (too long to quote here, can be read at the official link above) is manufacturers of network equipment/software, home automation products, drones, and similar technologies. These are areas that not only have had security experts warning us about risks for years, but where we have conclusive proof that they have, in fact, been used in the ways targeted by the bill.

[jipehog]

The real question in regard to Trump's indictment is will this hurt or help him politically?

The vast majority of republicans/independents and big portion of democrats believe this is politically motivated move. Trump is already screaming  -- ALL CAPS -- "witch hunt"! riling his MAGA base. So will this allow him to become the republican nominee and ride on this to the white house?

From what I've heard, you can get 20 years in prison for using a VPN and accessing banned websites? This just seems like the PATRIOT Act all over again. "Look out for these bad people! We will protect you by giving ourselves insane amounts of power over your lives and not actually solve any problem!"

I doubt it will change anything, any more than the p2p lawsuits scare couple of decades ago.

Otherwise, lets be honest, most people who use VPN aren't doing for some noble reasons, but for the same reason people use p2p.

[Duuvian]

You are correct that it does not say that in the bill. It is however extremely broad and open to interpretation. Also such broadness is a sloppy way to legislate and not a compliment to the authors. This would leave it up to courts to decide precedent... except in my skim of the bill I noticed that court procedure and even jurisdiction regarding the act is also helpfully modified by the act should it pass.

Spoiler: SEC. 12. Judicial review (click to show/hide)

(b) Administrative and judicial review.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, actions taken by the President and the Secretary, and the findings of the President and the Secretary, under this Act shall not be subject to administrative review or judicial review in any Federal court, except as otherwise provided in this section. Actions taken by the Secretary under this Act shall not be subject to sections 551, 553 through 559, and 701 through 707 of title 5, United States Code.

(c) Petitions.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the Secretary takes action under section 3(a), or the President takes action under section 4(c), an aggrieved person may apply for review by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

(2) STANDARD OF REVIEW.—The court shall not disturb any action taken by the Secretary under section 3(a), or by the President under section 4(c), unless the petitioner demonstrates that the action is unconstitutional or in patent violation of a clear and mandatory statutory command.

(d) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under this Act against the United States, any executive department or agency, or any component or official of an executive department or agency, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States under section 1254 of title 28, United States Code.

This is what they were referring to actually:
11.(a).F
(F) No person may engage in any transaction or take any other action with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued thereunder.

2.13
(13) PERSON.—The term “person” means a natural person, including a citizen or national of the United States or of any foreign country.

11.(c).1
(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

Also TikTok should not be banned simply because you don't like or do fear it. It should be be banned if it does not comply after being covered by a wider privacy bill that isn't written accordingly to (US) tech companies' lobbies. This latter caveat is because some states have stronger privacy laws than the federal statutes provide, and the data collection and surveillance industries know this and would like a weak federal law to override them.

Otherwise, lets be honest, most people who use VPN aren't doing for some noble reasons, but for the same reason people use p2p.

Lol someone correct this person please

[Lord Shonus]

That is "individuals can be prosecuted as part of this list of offenses". I posted the list of offenses that section refers to, all of which require organized activity. "If a group does X in an organized way, individuals in said group can be prosecuted" =/= "We can start prosecuting people for individually doing something that is very tangentially connected to X".

[Micro102]

Hmmmm. Would a VPN not be subversion of the design of an American ISP that has been designed to block you from accessing website X, Y, or Z?

They should add protections against these possibilities.

[Random_Dragon]

Otherwise, lets be honest, most people who use VPN aren't doing for some noble reasons, but for the same reason people use p2p.

I predict there's gonna be an uptick in valid reasons to use VPNs, especially in shithole states like mine.

[LordBaal]

Most people now days use vpn for skip geo restrictions. Sure, shady things are probably in the mix but I think most people just use it to bing some geolocked netflix/hbo series or work related thing.

In my case my provider includes a VNP in their service that let us watch all the seasons of the Simpsons and sometimes test things for my work. However since it can't be turned off añl HBO shows are just in English.

[EuchreJack]

I doubt it will change anything, any more than the p2p lawsuits scare couple of decades ago.

Otherwise, lets be honest, most people who use VPN aren't doing for some noble reasons, but for the same reason people use p2p.

I will die on this hill for my God-given Right to Download Porn for free!

And to be clear, I'm talking good natured porn, like gangbangs BDSM ATM. Not that bad stuff.
(I also don't use a VPN, but do use p2p)

[McTraveller]

Eh, I think "most people" use VPN because their employers require it.