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

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#31

Post by [deleted] »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #21
Kye wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? He's a real lawyer and law professor. I haven't heard of any of these criticisms. edit: I can't reply, so... Specific criticisms, please? The link is to a video with a Canadian lawyer and someone who might actually have a relevant opinion on US law who, several minutes in, can only seem to broadly and mockingly dismiss him without saying anything specific other than accuse him of being biased and mo…

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5_hVrfBjRs&t=3456s

[deleted]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#34

Post by andrekandre » 

  > After he became president, Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the hush money and falsely recorded those payments as legal fees.
so, if i understand correctly, the main issue is the "falsely recorded those payments as legal fees" part and not the hush money part?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#36

Post by brucethemoose2 »

nirav72 wrote: post #25

Political theater. If anything, this will help Trump and possibly give him a boast in his own party.

Even in the absolute worst case scenario for Trump (he loses and... has a massive fine? Is in jail for a bit?), this is a huge boost to Trump's campaign handed to him on a silver platter.

Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#37

Post by mjmsmith »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #20
flangola7 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? I want this, why would history be unkind to me?

Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.

Why would a future president think there are any limits whatsoever on his actions, when a future of prosecution will never await him? Kind of what happened on Jan 6.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#38

Post by encryptluks2 »

andrekandre wrote: post #34

> After he became president, Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the hush money and falsely recorded those payments as legal fees. so, if i understand correctly, the main issue is the "falsely recorded those payments as legal fees" part and not the hush money part?

[dead]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#39

Post by dukeofdoom »

Kye wrote: post #19
dukeofdoom wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What do you mean? He's a real lawyer and law professor. I haven't heard of any of these criticisms. edit: I can't reply, so... Specific criticisms, please? The link is to a video with a Canadian lawyer and someone who might actually have a relevant opinion on US law who, several minutes in, can only seem to broadly and mockingly dismiss him without saying anything specific other than accuse him of being biased and mo…

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#40

Post by bruceb »

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 this is a waste of time and money.

The country doesn't need this. Trump was fading away.

Post reply on HN