Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#401

Post by midoridensha » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:49 AM UTC

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #36

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.

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

Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#402

Post by anon291 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:50 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #139

koolba wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worthy of charging here? The point of a fair justice system is not to charge a specific someone with something , it’s to go after a specific crime. The legal gymnastics this DA is jumping through to attach charges here makes a joke of the entire justice system. I won’t be surprise if Bragg is disbarred for this.

Even if it’s a conviction I hope the sentencing is appropriate. Wealthy men making sex workers wealthier in order to not disrupt their ostensibly conservative social values is pretty low on my own criminal punishment tier list (especially compared to something that happened during the presidency like the burglary of election-connected properties by Nixon, or more favourable to Clinton’s consensual acts vs his credibi…

I don't think anyone has ever accused donald trump of 'ostensibly conservative' social values. Everyone who voted for him knew his behavior in these areas and voted for him despite it, not because of it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#403

Post by PragmaticPulp » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:50 AM UTC

sashank_1509 wrote: post #199

Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thinks: 1. First there are two alternative realities being played in real time in US: This arguably is the first time this has happened in US history (maybe civil war was another time) but two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 diff…

“We shouldn’t hold politicians accountable for their crimes because their supporters won’t like it” is one of the weirder takes I’ve seen in this thread. Obviously someone’s followers won’t like seeing their hero held accountable for crimes, but having a lot of followers shouldn’t make someone immune from consequences for their crimes. That’s one hell of a slippery slope.

> Now if you go ahead and jail the populist leader, you are going even closer to complete political fracture especially after a good chunk of the population believes the election was stolen from him. If you think this will convince any Trump supporters they're wrong (lol), I have a pipe dream to sell you

This post has a high density of non sequiturs. The purpose of the indictment wasn’t to convince Trump voters that the election wasn’t stolen. It’s unrelated to basically anything you wrote about. It’s about enforcing laws and following up on crimes.

Also, you seem to have missed Trump’s recent decline in popularity. He hasn’t been very popular for a while now, outside of the staunch core supporters. Even Fox News has started moving on and isn’t afraid to criticize him any more.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#404

Post by lokar » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:52 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #322

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.

Paying hush money is not a crime and no one is claiming it is.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#405

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:52 AM UTC

marcell wrote: post #389

I've scrolled through the top ~10 or so comments, and none of them, describe or comment on the nature of the charges against Trump. To be fair to the commenters, most stories are vague. The charges relate to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, but hush money is not a crime. It's also not a crime to have an affair with Stormy Daniels. So the most salacious parts of the story are not what the crime is. My understand…

The theory as I understand it is that the payment was a large unreported contribution to his presidential campaign. It's not legal to do that, and the prosecutors believe they can demonstrate that's what happened.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#406

Post by anon291 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:52 AM UTC

sashank_1509 wrote: post #199

Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thinks: 1. First there are two alternative realities being played in real time in US: This arguably is the first time this has happened in US history (maybe civil war was another time) but two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 diff…

Finally a sensible comment that 'gets' it. People are too eager to punish fellow Americans, and uninterested in understanding them.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#407

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:53 AM UTC

midoridensha wrote: post #401

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper. Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning?

> Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning?

No, I don’t think so. Trump was actually the weakest general election candidate of the major Republicans, what resulted in Trump winning was institutional power in the Democratic Party aligning betwern a candidate that was, equally clearly, the weakest general election candidate of the major Democratic contenders, and whose negatives were much firmer than Trump’s were as a relative political cipher.

Also, Democrats didn't get Trump nominated, a Republican nomination system designed to build sipport for the early leader by providing disproportional delegate majority’s to the magnitude of popular victory—a system designed to favor the pick of the institutional party and cut the knees of “insurgent” campaigns—did that, because the institutional powerbase couldn’t unite behind a candidate.

Were Trump to be nominated in 2024, he will face the same problem as in 2020—he won’t be running against Hillary Clinton.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#408

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:54 AM UTC

dirck wrote: post #178

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…

The defense gets to voir dire the jury. There were still millions of votes for Trump in NY and many that didn't vote at all.

I don't think this is the case for grand juries...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#409

Post by robomartin » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:54 AM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #363

robomartin wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There is a part of me that wonders how wise this is, not because Trump doesn't deserve it, but because Republicans will do the "my turn" and try to witch-hunt every opponent, even moderate Republicans, who they don't like. Donald Trump is a criminal, and his crimes against this country were well documented in two impeachments. I agree that having "only" a tax fraud prostitution coverup is not ideal. Unfortunately, th…

I disagree with some of what you are saying. I won’t address it though. I have learned the hard way it is pointless. Nobody wants a conversation.

I’ll just say US politics, from every angle, has been royally fucked for decades. Our politicians have made lying to us a virtue. Our laws protect the with immunity. High level example: Obama’s promises about Obamacare. Lies. He is a multimillionaire now. No consequences. No legal recourse whatsoever.

Our media is no better. They lie and manipulate 24/7, sometimes working with or under government supervision.

While Americans yell at each other online while convinced they know what’s going on (sad joke of unimaginable proportions) the country is shredding itself from the inside out. The Chinese are watching this and shitting themselves laughing at the stupidity of the American voter and politicians.

I don’t know what to say any more. Keep looking at the shadows on the wall. One day they will be replaced by the sad reality we are creating.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#410

Post by notch898a » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 4:54 AM UTC

marcell wrote: post #389

I've scrolled through the top ~10 or so comments, and none of them, describe or comment on the nature of the charges against Trump. To be fair to the commenters, most stories are vague. The charges relate to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, but hush money is not a crime. It's also not a crime to have an affair with Stormy Daniels. So the most salacious parts of the story are not what the crime is. My understand…

I'm probably wrong, but google indicates statute of limitations for misdemeanors is only 2 years in New York. Curious how this ties into things, the stormy daniels fiasco is what 5+ years ago? Surely there is a felony charge in there?