Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#231

Post by jamestimmins » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

webdood90 wrote: post #194

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.

I'm 100% in support of applying the law to all people. What I don't love is the timing of it. It makes it easily dismissible as political theatre. Wait until after the election.

This logic doesn't hold up. If he wins then they have to indict a sitting president and 9 years will have passed, and the "timing == political theater" seems even stronger. If they wait until he's out of office, it's 13 years.

If you treat your life as one big show, any accountability will seem like theater, but that doesn't mean you get to avoid it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#232

Post by sbaiddn » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

gibrown wrote: post #61

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…

Sounds like there are 34 counts of falsifying business records so it is probably more than just that one payoff.

Or the same crime stated 34 different ways. Prosecutors do this all the time

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#233

Post by thequadehunter » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

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.

Weirdly enough, I've been far more interested in local politics lately because I can see stuff actually get done that improves my life.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#234

Post by graeme » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

sashank_1509 wrote: post #199

Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thinks: 1. First there are two alternative realities being played in real time in US: This arguably is the first time this has happened in US history (maybe civil war was another time) but two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 diff…

>Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history?

Your post is a lot of meta talk and very short on actual....crimes. The idea behind this indictment is that Trump broke the law as a citizen. Not that he did stuff in office that people dislike.

Which law did Obama break which you think he evaded prosecution for on account of being president. Please be specific.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#235

Post by anonymouskimmer » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

pasquinelli wrote: post #225

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA you can still run for president while in prison. And if you're elected President they're going to, at minimum, move you to house arrest at the White House. Regardless, though, he'd probably remain free until the election. Either because the trial is ongoing, or because of appeals. Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty in January 2022. Sentenced to prison in 10 months later in November 2022. And is still not ye…

> And if you're elected President they're going to, at minimum, move you to house arrest at the White House. why wouldn't you just pardon yourself?

State sovereignty. The federal president can't pardon state charges.

It's also probably not possible to pardon oneself. For federal charges the VP would have to do so (while sitting as acting president).

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#236

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

sashank_1509 wrote: post #199

Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thinks: 1. First there are two alternative realities being played in real time in US: This arguably is the first time this has happened in US history (maybe civil war was another time) but two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 diff…

I apparently knew the concept, but not the phrase. Thank you for making me learn something new today!

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#237

Post by MuffinFlavored » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

heartbreak wrote: post #224

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely askin…

Despite your disclaimers, this seems to be in bad faith given that “all they’ve got” implies he’ll never be indicted again. Also, Al Capone was indicted for what?

> Despite your disclaimers, this seems to be in bad faith given that “all they’ve got” implies he’ll never be indicted again

I'm sorry, I'll try to reword it to come across differently. My whole question is: Why hasn't he been indicted of bigger/harsher crimes already?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#238

Post by kemotep » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212

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.

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely askin…

This is one of several cases against Trump that has advanced beyond the Grand Jury stage.

Potentially we could see several other indictments. Such as the Federal cases for the classified documents and the Georgia case for interfering with an election.

This is just the first one. Doesn’t have to be the last nor does it mean he is instantly ruled guilty and is going to prison or paying a fine. He will have his chance in court to make a case for his innocence in the face of these specific charges.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#239

Post by dmix » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

cool_dude85 wrote: post #87

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 think the reason this indictment is tolerated is precisely due to it not being about any of those things. Anyone who wants to be President will be comfortable doing all the things you list, and probably worse we don't know about, but they are also generally savvy enough to keep their non-political crimes plausibly deniable. So, go after Trump specifically when he wasn't able to do that much.

100% even if Clinton had done something similar with his sex stuff and got charged that doesn’t mean Bush/Cheney would have been more likely to be held legally accountable. Especially at a time when it mattered.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#240

Post by neither_color » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #162

plandis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>As of March 2023, 123 states are members of the Court.[3] Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.[3]

I looked into it more and while 7 voted against, 21 abstained so votes don't tell the whole picture. Between China, Indonesia, India and The US you're talking a major chunk of the world population.