Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#421

Post by AustinDev » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:02 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #405

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.

Campaign finance violates are a dime a dozen. I don't think any serious candidate didn't have values similar or greater than what's discussed in this case. None of them got indicted criminally they all just paid fines.

`The commission documents said Perkins Coie — where a partner at the time, Marc Elias, was representing the Clinton campaign — paid Fusion GPS slightly more than $1 million in 2016, and the law firm was in turn paid $175,000 by the campaign and about $850,000 by the party during six weeks in July and August 2016. Campaign spending disclosure reports described most of those payments to Perkins Coie as having been for “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.”`

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clint...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#422

Post by jshen » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:02 AM UTC

stuckinhell wrote: post #332

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because Trump has nearly religious following that scares many many people on the left and right. They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis. I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.

The democratic nominee for President has won the popular vote in something like 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. A majority of Americans do have progressive principles, but America is a minority rule country at the moment.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#423

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:03 AM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #406

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.

Is this what you say any time someone is being prosecuted for breaking the law? Like is your thought about all the fraud Sam Bankman Fried committed that "we're too eager to punish fellow Americans, and uninterested in understanding them"?

If there isn't compelling evidence that laws were broken here, then fine. But if there is, then it seems like the way to deal with evidence of lawbreaking is to prosecute it...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#424

Post by laidoffamazon » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:03 AM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #398

CottonMcKnight wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His personal lawyer went to prison for 2 years on charges related to this crime, and was the primary witness against Trump in this Grand Jury investigation. Whatever he told them, along with whatever other evidence was presented, it was sufficient for them to indict. The Grand Jury indicted Trump, not Alvin Bragg.

A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. I've been on a grand jury, and the indictment rate is >95% in most cases.

This just means there’s a high standard to empaneling a grand jury.

They got Michael Cohen for this, and Trump was mentioned in his proceedings as “individual one”.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#425

Post by misssocrates » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:04 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #234

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…

>Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history? Your post is a lot of meta talk and very short on actual....crimes. The idea behind this indictment is that Trump broke the law as a citizen. Not that he did stuff in office that people dislike. Which law did Obama break which you think he evaded prosecution for on account of being president. Please be specific.

Be specific about the charges in this case?

How confident are you that they couldn't find something on every single President?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#426

Post by vharuck » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:04 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…

>It sounds like they have to prove two separate crimes, and connect them with intention. Intent of course is always hard to prove in court.

Michael Cohen pled guilty and was sentenced to three years for the campaign finance law, and he's been very vocal about Trump's knowledge and involvement. So proving intent doesn't seem impossible. And, by definition, falsifying business records comes with a record of false information.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#427

Post by Slava_Propanei » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:04 AM UTC

jamestimmins wrote: post #231

webdood90 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 100% in support of applying the law to all people. What I don't love is the timing of it. It makes it easily dismissible as political theatre. Wait until after the election.

This logic doesn't hold up. If he wins then they have to indict a sitting president and 9 years will have passed, and the "timing == political theater" seems even stronger. If they wait until he's out of office, it's 13 years. If you treat your life as one big show, any accountability will seem like theater, but that doesn't mean you get to avoid it.

[dead]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#428

Post by pstuart » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:04 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #414

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…

All of this is political. None of what you said even takes into consideration whether or not a law was broken... You could have written this exact comment about the political environment if there were live footage of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

That Fifth Avenue comment was so shocking back in the day, and it's more shocking today in how true it was.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#429

Post by jshen » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:05 AM UTC

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #186

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.

Just need a mental gut check after reading this comment. Do people not think this is political?

He committed crimes, drew a bunch of attention to himself, and here we are. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#430

Post by laidoffamazon » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:05 AM UTC

djfobbz wrote: post #257

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.

I’m pretty sure that George Bush Jr. qualifies for way more charges solely based on the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. But no, hush payments to porn stars is a lot more important. Welcome to clown world!

I prefer my presidents not pay hush money to porn stars