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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#301

Post by leereeves »

stanleydrew wrote: post #275
norwalkbear wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

To make this claim you have to argue that the indictment is illegitimate. And I suppose there are a lot of people who will make that claim. Presumably the reason Obama, Bush and Clinton won't be charged with crimes is that there isn't enough evidence that they committed any crimes for a prosecutor to seek an indictment.

The NY Times called the case an "untested legal theory" and said "it is not easy to point to a direct precedent for the case Mr. Bragg appears to be contemplating".

IMO any case made against a DA's political opponents should rest on solid ground, not untested legal theories.

It's disturbing that so many people are willing to throw away the legal system in order to prosecute someone they don't like.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#302

Post by norwalkbear »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #296
dmix wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour bef…

Doesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#303

Post by dmix »

jeffbee wrote: post #183
djha-skin wrote: post #114

To play devil's advocate a little bit. From a structural perspective, it was pretty much impossible for the courts to recruit any jury that wouldn't be biased. Furthermore, the case was in New York, which is a very democratic city. I would be surprised if any jury picked from there wasn't biased and wouldn't have convicted him of any crime the judge put in front of them. To be perfectly clear, I am not a fan of Donal…

"Everyone in my home town knows and hates me" is one hell of an argument.

To be fair Trump has always played into the rich villain character with the media even in the 1990s… well before his formal entry to politics in the 2000s when the media realized they had a wall-to-wall supervillain story on their hands.

But before he was president he was uncontroversially pretty popular in NYC. Even when playing the villain to the local gov/media. It’s difficult or impossible to disconnect this reality from national perceptions well beyond NYC. He was a president of the United States after all. He’s not just a local. That changes the stakes 1000x fold.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#304

Post by anonymouskimmer »

anonu wrote: post #172

[flagged]

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

I honestly don't know. His base was yelling "lock her up!" about Hillary, and he did nothing at all to do so. If the Dems actually do manage to "lock him up", even at the state level, that makes them more potent than him when it comes to holding federal politicians accountable. I could possibly see this swaying independents who want to hold politicians accountable.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#305

Post by havblue »

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…

Certainly, Bush and Cheney invaded a country under false pretenses after lying to the public. They also set up a surveillance state with the help of major corporations. And, maybe not so much of a crime, they set us on the path of thinking that deficits don't matter in this country: so for their increases in spending they steadfastly lowered taxes. And the bank bailouts....

The unfortunate matter though is the damage they did to this country was fairly bipartisan, which I believe plays a large part in Bush's rehabilitation in the public image after leaving office. At least he didn't make mean jokes like some people.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#306

Post by tablespoon »

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.

> Treaties have an effect similar to a constitutional amendment.

They obviously do not. If they did, you could basically abolish the Constitution with one with only the presidency, a bare majority of the Senate, and the cooperation of a foreign power. An actual Constitutional amendment must meet a much, much higher bar.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#307

Post by norwalkbear »

stanleydrew wrote: post #275
norwalkbear wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

To make this claim you have to argue that the indictment is illegitimate. And I suppose there are a lot of people who will make that claim. Presumably the reason Obama, Bush and Clinton won't be charged with crimes is that there isn't enough evidence that they committed any crimes for a prosecutor to seek an indictment.

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#308

Post by pessimizer »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #30
dukeofdoom wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Because the message here is that they will be criminally charged, if they don’t honor the election and the peaceful transfer of power. It’s scary that we have to set this precedent, but it’d be scarier if we don’t.

That's not how power works. When a person has the power to declare themselves dictator, they don't then arrest themselves for dishonoring the election.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#309

Post by stanleydrew »

peyton wrote: post #288
stanleydrew wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make this claim you have to argue that the indictment is illegitimate. And I suppose there are a lot of people who will make that claim. Presumably the reason Obama, Bush and Clinton won't be charged with crimes is that there isn't enough evidence that they committed any crimes for a prosecutor to seek an indictment.

Why? Prosecutors have discretion. Doesn’t mean the indictment is illegitimate.

Agreed. We haven't seen the indictment yet, so it's not really possible to opine on its legitimacy. A lot of people are jumping to conclusions without evidence.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#310

Post by norwalkbear »

dmix wrote: post #249
fsckboy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 presiden…

This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour bef…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN