Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#151

Post by koolba »

alsaaro wrote: post #118
koolba wrote: 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.

Remember John Edwards, former Democratic nominee for vice-President, was essentially indicted for the same thing Trump is now, that is using political contributions as hush money. Edwards was facing 30 years for all the charges arraigned against him. We still don't know the specifics or the extent of Trump's legal issues, as the Grand jury is still ongoing for this case and others.

Also of note is that Edwards was acquitted and the Biden justice department, the previous NY district attorney, and even Bragg himself previously, has already rejected going after Trump for FEC violations that are apparently at the heart of how he’s constructed a felony charge.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#152

Post by dharmab »

flutas wrote: post #129
plandis wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I served on a grand jury. There were cases where we heard evidence and it became clear that the charged crimes didn't occur. Those cases were not voted on and the public never heard about them. The vote is a formal procedure _after_ the evidence has built a case.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#153

Post by jmull »

pessimizer wrote: post #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 astounde…

> If you believe in democracy, you hate this.

If you run for president the law shouldn’t apply to you? Because if it were, there would be armed rebellion? You aren’t describing a democracy.

(Maybe this is a political prosecution, but if so, we don’t know it yet.)

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#154

Post by ncallaway »

nickthegreek wrote: post #119
ncallaway wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems wild to make this argument before the indictment has been unsealed. Shouldn’t we wait to see the allegations before we declare them baseless?

Apparently 34 charges.

Has the indictment been released, or is that a leak from someone with knowledge?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#155

Post by dmreedy »

djha-skin wrote: post #114

To play devil's advocate a little bit. From a structural perspective, it was pretty much impossible for the courts to recruit any jury that wouldn't be biased. Furthermore, the case was in New York, which is a very democratic city. I would be surprised if any jury picked from there wasn't biased and wouldn't have convicted him of any crime the judge put in front of them. To be perfectly clear, I am not a fan of Donal…

Martin Shkreli also attempted this defense.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#156

Post by dogma1138 »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #106
mbgerring wrote: post #55

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.

Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

That cannot happen without a significant change to the constitution which will never happen.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#157

Post by khazhoux »

photochemsyn wrote: post #67

I think it sets a good precedent. If indicting past presidents (and vice presidents) for crimes committed while in office (or while running for office), well, the courts are going to be busy on this front for years to come. Bush and Cheney are certainly candidates, r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims. The list could be expanded to include charges related to the unConstitutional domestic spying progra…

I don’t believe all those can be traced to some law broken, though.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#158

Post by themitigating »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #122
themitigating wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Al Capone was finally locked up because of tax fraud and it's celebrated.

Same situation

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#159

Post by zaroth »

dmix wrote: post #139
koolba wrote: 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.

Even if it’s a conviction I hope the sentencing is appropriate. Wealthy men making sex workers wealthier in order to not disrupt their ostensibly conservative social values is pretty low on my own criminal punishment tier list (especially compared to something that happened during the presidency like the burglary of election-connected properties by Nixon, or more favourable to Clinton’s consensual acts vs his credibi…

There was nothing wrong or illegal about the payment. No one has ever pointed to a charge that related to the payment itself that I’ve heard.

They are targeting the record keeping.

Post reply on HN