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

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#41

Post by mercyandgrace »

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.

> Because the message here is that they will be criminally charged, if they don’t honor the election and the peaceful transfer of power.

With something completely unrelated? That's a concerning viewpoint.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#42

Post by rnjesus »

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?

yeah, paying money to someone to keep them quiet isn’t necessarily illegal (i think.. a lawyer’s knowledge would be appreciated here), but trying to write it off as legal fees seems to be the issue. i imagine there are tax implications, as well as what pool of cash the money was paid from (i.e. if it was from campaign money). it’s impossible to say for certain what the exact issue is until the charges are revealed

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#45

Post by cmurf »

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.

Uhh the guy in this indictment is the president who didn't want to relinquish power before he was charged with crimes. He obviously didn't need to be charged before attempting treason and autocracy.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#48

Post by throwaway6734 »

bruceb wrote: post #40
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…

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

Agree with the former, disagree with the latter. he's still the frontrunner to win the gop primary

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#49

Post by dang »

All: please don't post low-substance and/or high-indignation and/or political battle comments to this thread, or any HN thread. We're trying for something else here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

This is on the front page because it's historically significant and intellectually interesting; so please comment if you have something to say that enhances those aspects. I know it's hard to detach from the passions of the moment, but that's kind of necessary for curious conversation*, so it's good practice.

* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#50

Post by organsnyder »

csense wrote: post #46
philosopher1234 wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Just refreshed after being away for a while, and it now shows as [flagged]. I think years ago HN used to have a way you could "vouch" for flagged content to unflag it, but I don't see the option, maybe they took it away at some point?

You can vouch for comments, but not (to my knowledge) posts.
Post reply on HN