So, the theory presented by the poster above is the speculation from media outlets about the charges. However, as of now the charges haven't actually been unsealed and released publicly, so we don't *know* what the specific charges are.

The general speculation around the falsified business records charge is that according to NY law it's a misdemeanor that gets escalated to a felony if it was done with the intent of hiding another crime.

That would be NY PL 175.10

> A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

> Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

So, that's the speculation about how a prosecutor would get a felony of the falsifying business records charge (which, I'll reiterate one more time is speculation since we don't yet know the specific charges).

There are other statute of limitations factors that complicates things. I heard one legal analyst claim that the NY statute of limitations is tolled when someone has permanently left the state (which means while Trump is in Florida, the NY statute of limitations clock would be paused). I haven't been able to find a source for that information, so... I'm not confident that it's accurate.

But, while the statute of limitation math can by mildly complicated, but it would be absolutely stunning if the DA fucks it up in a case this high profile.

I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ). (late edit - it was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 - not the YouTube link)

The statue of limitations in New York doesn't accumulate when the defendant is outside of the state.

I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

> I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ).

Your link is wrong, but now I probably know what you watch on youtube.

> I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

Please make note of it for me, because I don't want to read a 68 page legal opinion just to figure out what you already seem to know.

I was mistaken on the link - my comment was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 (alas, lazy clipboarding and not double checking)

Page 18 of ALITO, J., dissenting. It is on page 82 of the pdf overall.

It might be interesting to argue whether taking public office as the president counts towards residency requirements. I don't know if it counts for statute of limitations, but for instance military members are still considered resident of their state when on duty elsewhere.

The intent of that provision in NY law is so that if someone is trying to run out the clock for NY state by being outside of its jurisdiction and ability to indict them doesn't get a free pass.

The question will be "is it literally 'being outside of New York' or is it 'being outside the jurisdiction New York, of which assuming the role of POTUS is example of'?"

Seems like something that will undoubtedly get litigated. Not to say this should dissuade justice, but this is going to be remarkably expensive for the people of New York.

> Your link is wrong, but now I probably know what you watch on youtube.

What is the point in such a statement?