543
It sure looks like Donald Trump was disguised as 'Doe 174' in the newly unsealed Jeffrey Epstein documents
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
543 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19087 readers
3743 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Actually it's pretty common to have limits. It's why NY passed a law to let anyone make a claim regardless of when it happened by a certain date. It was a catchup law, pretty much, and now the limit is back in place.
I'm surprised that actually worked. Normally the statute of limitations in place when the crime occurs is the one that applies, and extending it later does not let you retroactively prosecute cases barred by the previous statute of limitations. Stogner v California went that way, for example.
The legislature made a one time exception here.
Let me rephrase what I wrote before. Given Stogner, I'm surprised the courts didn't shoot this down as an ex post facto law. Hope everybody has a permanent recording of a perfect alibi for where they are and what they were up to at all times forever, just in case if ex post facto laws are back on the table whenever a state wants to make a one time exception.
It’s not ex post facto. The rape laws already existed. The statute of limitations was extended.
Again, see Stogner. In that case the statute of limitations was extended for a crime, and Stogner was tried for a charge that would have been barred by the previous statute of limitations but not by the new one.
The decision in the end was that he was not subject to prosecution, essentially that any past conduct you could not be prosecuted for you remain unable to be prosecuted for regardless of any future changes to the law. Basically once outside statute of limitations you can't be put back inside it or it's ex post facto.
So for example if the statute of limitations for a crime moved from 5 years to 20, if you are accused of doing a thing 6 years ago when the extension passes you are safe, but if you did it 4 years ago the extension applies. Except apparently in this case.
Perhaps the NY statue is fully civil in character? I don't really know either way, but it would be an explanation to your question.