Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

nytimes.com

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#121
post #102

Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.

Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worthy of charging here? The point of a fair justice system is not to charge a specific someone with something , it’s to go after a specific crime. The legal gymnastics this DA is jumping through to attach charges here makes a joke of the entire justice system. I won’t be surprise if Bragg is disbarred for this.

His personal lawyer went to prison for 2 years on charges related to this crime, and was the primary witness against Trump in this Grand Jury investigation.

Whatever he told them, along with whatever other evidence was presented, it was sufficient for them to indict.

The Grand Jury indicted Trump, not Alvin Bragg.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#122
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prior to Edward's indictment he was thought be the future of the democratic party Respectfully he wasn't seen that way. His indictment was in 2011. Obama was president and still had another election to do. Edwards had not been relevant since 2008, really since 2004, as no one thought he could be Hilary or Obama in the primary. >So there is precedent for indictments for this particular crime One could argue its shows…

He's running for president is at the top or 2nd place in polls with Republicans He is lying about election fraud, states tried to send fake electors, they used the courts to push phony cases.

Your first paragraph is correct. Your second probably is as well, but it's not this case.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#123
This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse.

I'm just astounded that the centrist blob thinks that they can get away with this utilizing a largely right-wing military, an extremely right-wing police force, and a extremely well-armed and numerous right-wing element of the population. It's madness. Maybe (most likely) the lords of surveillance and and propaganda have a better idea of the country's pulse and and potential reaction than I do. Maybe the incompetents in the Biden Admin aren't running the show, and the intelligence agencies are fully and competently in control.

If some African, Central Asian or South American country arrested the presidential frontrunner for paying a prostitute not to mention that he patronized her, everyone would recognize it as a country about to fall into violent anarchy. It's sad that in the clouds our suburban upper-middle class have their heads in, there apparently aren't any mirrors.

If you believe in democracy, you hate this. If you believe in the version of the "rule of law" being bandied around that insists that law occupies some abstract space above the will of the deplorable population, a place ruled by angels that resemble the Warren Court and were educated at Harvard, Yale, or small private liberal arts colleges in the northeast - I think you may be absolutely blindsided in the coming months.

edit: somehow, corporations got the unlimited ability to bribe politicians and political parties, but campaign finance laws can be warped to cover this shit.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#124
post #84

Hacker News is better without unrelated political news.

It is isn't it? However, it seems that someone wants outrage. If it was a different political person, it wouldn't be on the front page.

The admission here is that the only reason why this was upvoted or on the front page is because the only good news is Trump schadenfreude and the opportunity for launching cheap attacks here.

The only 'bad news' is any good news that benefits Trump. (Which never makes it on top on HN anyway, and it shouldn't and vice versa because it is pure politics and creates a complete mess of the comments and dang knows it.)

Just look at the wave of flagged comments everywhere in this thread. It tells use that there is good reason why such news like this should not be on top of this page. (It is not intellectually interesting, it is partisan and a heavily divisive flame-bait topic.)

It never helps pouring fuel on the flames.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#125
post #22

As the saying goes: "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich". Still big news...I'll just wait and see if the charges stick.

Indictment is an unfamiliar and intimidating word. In reality it begins a much more involved process and it doesn’t indicate guilt. It is most certainly not a verdict or a prelude to a sentence being handed down, as many people seem to believe judging by social media.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#126
post #84

Hacker News is better without unrelated political news.

My knowledge of political events is sparse because I haven't dedicated the time it takes to acquire the prerequisite knowledge. However, I'd be interested in learning more from those here who do have that knowledge and are willing to share perspective on these sort of events. In general, I think it's valuable to be curious about things you're not necessarily interested in.

I like hearing and considering arguments to change the status quo.

I already understand the status quo, so I don't enjoy hearing arguments which defend the status quo.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#127

Is it weird that I don't care? When he was in office he drove me insane. Now I really couldn't be bothered. I think I'm desensitized to... politics, or justice, or something.

No. When Trump was in power, he mattered and his nonsense had real consequences, and he had a presence on all of the major social media platforms, and people willing to take violence to the streets for him. Now he's shrieking in all caps in his little corner of the internet and making deranged threats about "consequences" if he's arrested and... almost no one seems to care. He's no longer leader of the free world, he's just a rich, corrupt asshole shrieking into the void and shilling NFTs.

There are worse things coming down the pipeline than Trump anyway, it seems he was just a trial balloon for the fascist era we're heading into. I just wish he'd go away already.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#128

This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounde…

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#129
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worthy of charging here? The point of a fair justice system is not to charge a specific someone with something , it’s to go after a specific crime. The legal gymnastics this DA is jumping through to attach charges here makes a joke of the entire justice system. I won’t be surprise if Bragg is disbarred for this.

Do you have access to the case including evidence? The jury did and voted to indict, how can you be sure that this is legal gymnastics?

> The jury did and voted to indict

I honestly wouldn't put any faith in a jury choosing to indict. As famously once said, you can convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich. I'm waiting to see what the charges actually are and the evidence for them.

(1985 quote)

> In a bid to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler has proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments.

> Wachtler, who became the state’s top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#130

Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.

Meanwhile, adjacent to presidents, Henry Kissinger remains both alive and not charged in any international criminal courts. I think he's literally 99 years old now.

I think it’s rare for individuals in extreme-stress jobs like the SoS position he held to live much past 70. I have to guess that everyone who cared about charging him thought that it would be a waste of time, energy, and money based on his age for the last 30 years.
Post reply on HN