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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#321

Post by tablespoon »

leereeves wrote: post #301
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.

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.

> 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.

Exactly. It's an even bigger violation of the principle that "the law should apply to political leaders" to abuse the law in order to prosecute one.

I'm no fan of Trump, but any case against him should be strong, not something so weird that an acrobat would have trouble jumping through all the hoops. Unfortunately, Trump broke America, including his opponents, and now they're out for blood and are willing to go as low or even lower than him to get it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#322

Post by kazinator »

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 pretty sure I could pay hush money to a porn star and nothing would come of it, even if I blogged about it incessantly to get attention.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#324

Post by pessimizer »

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…

I get the impression that there's no explanation required for how all the forces of the most powerful government in the world and its intelligence agencies, which are the largest, best financed, and since 9/11 least restrained in the world can't prove the liberal claims of a vast array of crimes that a slightly stupid wrestling valet game show host who largely lived off branding agreements with real estate developers committed with the aid of a small network of self-serving d-list dipshits.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#325

Post by anonymouskimmer »

sashank_1509 wrote: post #258
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mill…

I deleted the Nuremberg comment before you replied.

What's allowed in self-defense, or defense of another, isn't allowed in offense, in most countries of the world (e.g. "Stand your ground" laws). This is partly why Germany was justifying its early invasions as protecting German residents of those countries. And is definitely why Russia is so justifying its invasion and annexation of Ukraine and Moldovan territory.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#326

Post by stuckinhell »

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…

Trump is a fundamentally different player than Bush or Nixon. They were establishment in times the establishment wasn't nearly as hated as it is now.

This just plays to Trump's strength as the ultimate rebel.

In terms of game theory, this is a very different game than Nixon or Bush. Trump annihilated the Bush Legacy, and is hated by both sides of the establishment.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#327

Post by stuckinhell »

plandis wrote: post #143
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.

Never will happen. The US controls military power around the globe for now.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#328

Post by pyuser583 »

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.

This is not true - at least not any more.

Congress does get extra power when a law is passed as a treaty. Issues that are state business under the 10th Amendment become federal business.

But it’s nothing like a constitutional amendment.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#330

Post by motohagiography »

The argument for what makes it a bad precedent is that it means incumbent parties will use it to prosecute their opposition. If the best you can do is jail your opponents to keep them from running, that's not representation, it's just a war for control of a weapon. I think he will gain unexpected support from some principled moderates as a result.

There is a streak of nihilism in the tactics used against this former president, and it has become an attrition game where winning means being the last one disqualified for cheating or the only one left not in jail. As though they think it's only organized crime when you lose. Comedian Duncan Trussel quipped the other day that politics has become, "an Olympics for narcisistic sociopaths," and that's a pretty good characterization. I'm not American and I can't say I'm neutral, but I do think that the malice this indictment demonstrates is weakness, and that's a fundamentally un-american sentiment that will repel a lot of reasonable people. I have acquaintences who will treat it as a betrayal, but what I believe is that Americans are better than this. Poignant that we live in a time where that could be so unforgivable.

Post reply on HN