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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#161

Post by thequadehunter »

bruceb wrote: post #40
alsaaro wrote: post #14

Remember, a Grand Jury indicted John Edwards, a vice-Presidential candidate, for essentially the same thing Trump is being accused of -- that is using campaign funds to hide an affair. Prior to Edward's indictment he was thought be the future of the democratic party, if Edwards was convicted on all counts he faced up the 30 years in prison, he beat the charges though -- a rarity in federal prosecutions. So there is p…

>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…

The fact that you're factoring in how popular he polls to determine whether this prosecution is worth it cements in my mind that it is 100% worth it.

Popularity should be the last factor in whether someone is prosecuted for a crime.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#162

Post by arcticbull »

plandis wrote: post #143
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.

> The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States.

Not a great look.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#163

Post by unethical_ban »

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that he is guilty of this crime. Should we ignore it? If we further acknowledge that he is a nitwit without an inkling of knowledge about history, respect for democracy or the United States unless it aligns with his aggrandizement, then is this not like trying to nail Al Capone for tax fraud?

Are their supposedly intelligent people on this forum who truly believe Donald Trump to be a patriotic American, holding the interests of the country above the interests of himself?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#164

Post by 00kevn »

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…

I believe in Democracy and don't hate this. No one is above the law in a Democracy.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#165

Post by thathndude »

edgyquant wrote: post #113
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #85

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 i think this is a reasonable response. I’ve completely checked out of politics as well after 4 years of trump and two years of a continued culture war.

Same here. Sad thing is that I used to enjoy following politics. Now, I just steer clear entirely.

It’s all a farce, both sides. The media needs to stop making Trump relevant so that we all can move on.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#167

Post by poulsbohemian »

I know it is campaign finance fraud that is the actual charge, but that fact that of all the possible things they could have charged him with, it's something tied to a sexual act feels so both disappointing and so American. It's likely they can actually get a conviction, so I guess there's that.

You can already assume right-wing media will spin this into "Really? All you could get him for was a BJ?" Feels a bit like the late-night comedy of the Clinton impeachment.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#168

Post by webdood90 »

at_a_remove wrote: post #110

[flagged]

I don't understand how anyone can justify this perspective. If a crime is committed, there should be consequences. I don't care who it is or what their status is.

Instead of accepting it as status-quo, we should be going after everyone at every level, even more fiercely towards politicians.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#169

Post by fsckboy »

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.

> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders.

I think that's overstated.

First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king".

Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, so there is at least a substantial idea that there is some "sovereign immunity" (quotes because that's not what sovereign immunity refers to)

Third, the founders were also well aware of the threat of political motives for prosecutions and wanted to diminish them with various balance of power checks and balances.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#170

Post by gfodor »

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.

An indictment doesn’t say much about if this is an example of the law applying to a political leader.
Post reply on HN