Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

nytimes.com

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They can’t - the statute of limitations will have run out by then (there’s an argument that Trump will make that it has run out already).

From Trump v. Vance; Justice Alito in the dissenting opinion:

> ... And the district attorney should set out why he finds it necessary that the records be produced now as opposed to when the President leaves office. At argument, respondent’s counsel told us that his office’s concern is the expiration of the statute of limitations,11 but there are potential solutions to that problem. Even if New York law does not automatically suspend the statute of limitations for prosecuting a President until he leaves office,12 it may be possible to eliminate the problem by waiver.13 And if the prosecutor’s statute-of-limitations concerns relate to parties other than the President, he should be required to spell that out.

> ...

> 12: See N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §30.10(4)(a) (West 2010) (statute tolled when defendant outside the jurisdiction); see also People v. Knobel, 94 N. Y. 2d 226, 230, 723 N. E. 2d 550, 552 (1999) (explaining New York rule for tolling the limitations period when a defendant is “continuously outside” the State and concluding that “all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations”).

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more than that or people wouldn't be charging 90+ year olds who were concentration camp prison guards in their teens and early 20s.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#263

[flagged]

Last line: >don't take sides First line: >This has the makings of a Liberal (capital L, sic) pileup Any criticism or callout of your factual or logical fallacies will only reinforce your conspiratorial mindset. Since there aren't any "facts" to debate in your post, I'll just say you're wrong and move on.

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#264
Judging comments from republicans on Twitter "this is a political prosecution, from a biased Soros backed prosecutor"

Selective prosecution to try to sway an election was rejected once by voters after when Bill Clinton was impeached for his affair. So this will not directly boost Democrat's chances, might even make Donald a martyr. But would make sense if the strategy was to split the vote on the right.

Trump being in legal trouble is the carrot that got DeSantis to run. The problem is if DeSanits defeats Trump in the primary, he can't win in the general precisely because he defeated Trump. Trump has too many supporters that will never switch sides.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#265
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Also of note is that Edwards was acquitted

Perhaps he had some sort of defense. I hear that's how courts work. Along with dealing in findings of fact and law, rather than speculation about whether it's vaguely fair or vaguely unfair.

I'd imagine a billionaire who is also a former President of the United States also has the resources to muster a defense as effective as a non-billionaire former Senator, if there's an effective defense to be made.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#266
post #172

[flagged]

Genuine question. Do you think the Democratic Party itself is conspiring with the DA to bring these charges? Is it at all possible that Bragg is bringing these charges because Trump broke the law and his former lawyer already went to jail for this exact same crime Given that what he did was at Trump’s direct behest? Ie how would this look different if this wasn’t something that the DNC was trying to orchestrate as a…

Why is speculating about this stuff helpful? This is just you assuming the best of everyone and asking why other people assume the worst. None of us (I'm lying, this is HN and there are billionaire insiders browsing it) have any idea of what's going on behind closed doors during this endless process of trying to disqualify Trump from standing in the next election.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#267
I understand this is a revised case, with a new legal theory. Public opinion matters, the case has to be sufficient enough to go after a leading candidate for president.

so lots of questions like this will come up:

What does the state of NY have anything to do with enforcing federal election laws?

How is paying hush money a crime, when it hasn't been before?

How can it be an illegal Campaign contribution, when Trump was financing his own campaign?

7 year old case, how isn't this past statue of limitations?

The State's witness is a self-confessed liar, how can his testimony be sufficient.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#268

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 understand your point and understanding both sides of the country is very important, but so also is justice. I mean, what if he is guilty? If 48% of the population is ticked off by a guilty conviction that theoretically could be correct, that shouldn't stop us from convicting a criminal.

I'm not saying Trump is a criminal; I am not on the jury and do not have the facts. But I'm saying someone should be convicted if they're guilty even if it has political implications.

Whether or not people are angry at a result, that is their choice to make.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#269
post #131
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.

Keep in mind we don’t know the charges yet, or details of the case, like what evidence there is. If you pronounce it a joke or predict the disbarment of Bragg now , you aren’t doing it based on the merits of the case.

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#270
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.

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!

Is it illegal for the president to lie to Congress and the American people? Other than that, the military adventures were authorized, and Bush was within his Constitutional power to prosecute those military adventures.
Post reply on HN