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

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#251

Post by stanleydrew »

poulsbohemian wrote: post #167

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…

This is just one indictment based on the evidence gathered by one local prosecutor related to one set of potential criminal acts.

Other indictments are likely coming from other ongoing investigations.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#252

Post by dogma1138 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #191
dogma1138 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Treaties have an effect similar to a constitutional amendment.

No they do not, treaties when ratified become federal law, they are still bound by the constitution.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#253

Post by busterarm »

rippercushions wrote: post #227
busterarm wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News has been a shitstorm of political news since at least 2010.

I think you misspelled "the United States".

Europe isn't any different, just the things being argued about.

But no, back in those days this board was absolutely dominated by ancaps and other libertarian types. The socialists and other progressives only really started getting active in the aftermath of Occupy Wall Street. Like any other causeheads, they tirelessly fill these boards with their messaging. The only thing that they really come together to agree on is "fuck the poor". You see it whenever posts about homelessness, zoning or rent regulation pop up.

Lectures are fun though. At least here in the United States, we're so serious about bigotry that even a statement that can be misinterpreted will destroy your career. Then Europeans deride us for being a divided, racist country...meanwhile all across Europe you have major political parties getting large double digit percentages of the vote running on hateful anti-immigrant platforms, major political candidates pulling stunts like burning the Quran as a party demonstration and football players getting racist expletives shouted at them during their matches. And we haven't started talking about Asia yet. That gets even more special.

So please, tell me more about how this is limited to the United States.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#254

Post by NuSkooler »

Without the law applying to all, there is no law.

The fact that we've come this far -- with all that Trump has done -- and are now only getting to what equates to a grain of sand in the grand scheme of all that he has managed to pull off... that tells you a lot. We've been playing with fire for a long time. If this isn't just the start of charges, we're in a lot of trouble.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#255

Post by mjmsmith »

zdragnar wrote: post #193
CottonMcKnight wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They had better have some pretty solid evidence aside from his testimony. Building a case around the word of a man convicted of perjury, especially one with a public hatred of the defendant, seems like a profoundly stupid thing to do. I'll be waiting with my popcorn, because one way or another, this is gonna be good.

To be fair, he's only hated the defendant since he went to prison on behalf of the defendant.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#256

Post by pessimizer »

anonu wrote: post #172

[flagged]

This is a nightmare scenario. I can't believe that Trump has been inflated to enough importance that people are willing to casually risk the republic over it, like it's no big deal, just Thursday. I think that the Democratic base has been radicalized with messages of terror so aggressively since 2016 with the fear that Russian-Hitler-Trump is going to start shoving them into camps, that the unimaginable alternative of potential societal collapse seems like a fair risk.

> This is just red meat for Trump's base.

I hope we can still continue to talk about this stuff in horserace terms, but if Trump serves an hour in jail, or even sits in cuffs for a minute, I don't think we're going to be having any elections for a while.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#257

Post by djfobbz »

koolba wrote: post #102
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.

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.

I’m pretty sure that George Bush Jr. qualifies for way more charges solely based on the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. But no, hush payments to porn stars is a lot more important. Welcome to clown world!

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#258

Post by sashank_1509 »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #215
jmull wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Even if a prosecution is political, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Only trumped up charges (pun not intended), biased application of the law, extenuating circumstances, or a bad law make a prosecution wrong,

Law means anything if its applied equally to all sides. Biased applications of law, does not mean anything.

Nuremberg Trials were political: We humiliated and destroyed the Nazi's for loosing and killing 6 million jews. Nothing wrong with it but nothing lawful about it either.

If Nuremberg Trials were lawful, then we should have put US generals on trial for indiscriminately burning Tokyo, Osaka, Nagasaki killing millions (including small children). I don't see how this is any different from the holocaust except that its close to 700k dead vs 6 million in holocaust. If you think this numerical difference gives complete immunity to US soldiers for targeting civilians, I'm really interested in your moral philosophy.

We should also have put most of Russian Army on trial for massacring most of the German Army and a large chunk of their population (Close to 10 million). Arguably the charges would be much lower since most law allow killing of soldiers, however without soldiers it was still close to a million civilians killed.

Thinking that Nuremberg trials wasn't just a political show that was arguable necessary to maintain peace, but was instead pursuing some ephemeral Universal Justice is being deluded

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#259

Post by norwalkbear »

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #186
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.

Just need a mental gut check after reading this comment. Do people not think this is political?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN