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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#351

Post by stuckinhell »

zahma wrote: post #69
bruceb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It is never a bad time to pursue justice and allow the rusty machinery of our democracy to operate. I don't really care what comes of it, though I have an opinion of what is right and also what will happen. Many people treat this like a zero sum game: either he wins or he loses, and that result is good for Red Team or Blue Team. It would be helpful to our Nation if we recast this indictment as whether a public hearin…

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#352

Post by stuckinhell »

xienze wrote: post #60
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…

> So there is precedent for indictments for this particular crime Sure, but boy does it seem like a Plan Z attempt by Democrats to get literally any kind of charge to stick to Trump after 7!!! years of trying. And this particular case is one that's been known about for pretty much that entire time but was shelved, probably because they know it's weak.

It absolutely does even the New York Times is calling this a disaster!

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#353

Post by dragonwriter »

nemo44x wrote: post #134

[flagged]

> It’s generally a bad look to arrest your political opponents.

Its generally bad look to let criminals go free because of status, especially if the status is political position. The first demonstrates that the law is tool of control of those with lesser status, and the latter specifically promotes escalating abuses (the US since Watergate is, actually, quite a good example of this.)

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#354

Post by vlovich123 »

anonu wrote: post #276
vlovich123 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> conspiring I wouldn't use that word. Of course, if you break the law, you should be brought to justice no matter who you are. But come on.. Let's not be overly naive and believe that everyone operates in their own virtuous bubble.

I don’t know either way. So presuming political motives is to me just as naive as presuming apolitical ones. I’m sure there’s some amount of political calculation, but it’s also entirely possible this is Bragg acting independently for his own ambition. If anything, that’s the most believable starting prior for me personally, but individuals chasing ambition is what happens every day and isn’t some grand DNC conspiracy, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much. I agree how political the DA office is pretty gross, but I think that’s always been the case because charging and prosecution is largely an inherently political act regardless of who you prosecute.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#355

Post by stuckinhell »

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.

No one in power believes this. As a manager I can tell you are an IC and not a manager, director or anything close.

Even CEO's and board members don't.

The only reason they don't fight to the death is because they believe they can get a normal life afterwards. This just selects for psychopath candidates willing to cross every line to fight and keep power.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#358

Post by stuckinhell »

krapp wrote: post #24
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. Presidents aren't kings, they can't just "use the power of government" to keep themselves in power indefinitely, and they aren't above the law, in or out of office, despite what some of them might say. It doesn't matter if they want to relinquish power or not, their power ends when the Constitution says it does and…

I want to agree, but the Constitution is just a piece of paper, what matters is the will of people to accept or deny it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#359

Post by snozolli »

sbaiddn wrote: post #278
snozolli wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please note that for the future, during the point when the Hunter Biden Laptop thing reaches some kind of courtroom, if ever. How can it? The fools who handled it bungled every single step. They passed it around, completely destroying any chain of evidence, and started modifying the copies that they made. The most damning thing on it was homemade porn, effectively making their publishing of it run afoul of revenge po…

Well there are those pesky pictures of Hunter smoking crack while saying he's clean on a federal gun background check. Thats a biggie. Also, unless he was in Reno, paying for prostitutes is illegal.

Were these photos from the laptop? If so, as I said, the chain of evidence was destroyed through incompetence.

Do you understand that nobody is saying not to charge Hunter or his father? By all means, do so if you believe that a crime has been committed, but I don't see that you have sufficient evidence.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#360

Post by stuckinhell »

flangola7 wrote: post #23
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 if he doesn't relinquish it the other branches will remove him anyway, as was imminent with Nixon. Trump wasn't convicted by the Senate, but his butt was still kicked out of the White House on Inauguration Day. American democracy isn't fantastic but it's still a long way from the President having absolute…

Richard Nixon won the 1972 U.S. presidential election by a large margin. He defeated the Democratic Party nominee, George McGovern, by winning 60.7% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes out of 537. This was one of the largest landslides in U.S. presidential election history.

It wasn't imminent at all.

If Nixon wanted to end the republic as we know it, he nearly could have. He had a insane mandate by the people.

Post reply on HN