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

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#441

Post by otterley »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #296
dmix wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Doesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?

I think you mean "influence elections" - "picking who[m] you get to vote for" is quite a stretch.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#442

Post by ncallaway »

notch898a wrote: post #410
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?

So, the theory presented by the poster above is the speculation from media outlets about the charges. However, as of now the charges haven't actually been unsealed and released publicly, so we don't *know* what the specific charges are.

The general speculation around the falsified business records charge is that according to NY law it's a misdemeanor that gets escalated to a felony if it was done with the intent of hiding another crime.

That would be NY PL 175.10

> A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

> Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

So, that's the speculation about how a prosecutor would get a felony of the falsifying business records charge (which, I'll reiterate one more time is speculation since we don't yet know the specific charges).

There are other statute of limitations factors that complicates things. I heard one legal analyst claim that the NY statute of limitations is tolled when someone has permanently left the state (which means while Trump is in Florida, the NY statute of limitations clock would be paused). I haven't been able to find a source for that information, so... I'm not confident that it's accurate.

But, while the statute of limitation math can by mildly complicated, but it would be absolutely stunning if the DA fucks it up in a case this high profile.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#443

Post by tablespoon »

shagie wrote: post #418
notch898a wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ). (late edit - it was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 - not the YouTube link) The statue of limitations in New York doesn't accumulate when the defendant is outside of the state. I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.suprem…

> I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ).

Your link is wrong, but now I probably know what you watch on youtube.

> I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

Please make note of it for me, because I don't want to read a 68 page legal opinion just to figure out what you already seem to know.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#444

Post by laidoffamazon »

stuckinhell wrote: post #367
djha-skin wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. It feels a lot like the indictment of Al Capone. His lawyers were always concentrating on the big picture but they ignored the small stuff and the government was able to catch him on tax evasion. Getting indictment of any sort can lead to larger ones.

I see this alot. Donald Trump isn't Al Capone,and the analogy fails enormously. Donald Trump is a former president of the United States. He's beloved by his base in quasi-religious way, even across the globe. Italy had parade with a "God-emperor Trump". Trump cannot be treated with like Al Capone. He has run as the anti-establishment candidate, and by god you better have a bulletproof case on him or you have just ang…

Trump and Capone were both indicted. Though to be fair Capone never lost an election and then claimed he didn’t.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#445

Post by misssocrates »

talkingtab wrote: post #185

We are a people who have decided to be governed by laws rather than kings, or religions or dictators or putins. The laws applies to all the people equally. Everyone is entitled to a jury. A jury of peers decides. That is who we are. That is what a democracy is.

Since when has the law applied to all the people equally?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#447

Post by vkou »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #296
dmix wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Doesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?

The alternative is a country where political candidates are not bound by the rule of law.

That juice is not worth the squeeze.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#449

Post by simoncion »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #347
havblue wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, Bush and Cheney invaded a country under false pretenses after lying to the public. They also set up a surveillance state with the help of major corporations. And, maybe not so much of a crime, they set us on the path of thinking that deficits don't matter in this country: so for their increases in spending they steadfastly lowered taxes. And the bank bailouts.... The unfortunate matter though is the damage…

Let's not forget Clapper who literally perjured himself in front of congress. Also most of the creatures in the state department during the Bush years, including of course Bolton, and also others, Frum in particular. And of course, let's not forget Hillary, who is silent as a rock right about now. Since you know, breaking the law is now en vogue to prosecute.

Clapper did not literally perjure himself in front of Congress. He _absolutely_ did not.

It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath.

See: https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-c...> for a recording of what I believe is the Senate hearing to which you are referring.

Also consider the following quote from the Congressional Research Service about how the Senate chooses to place folks under oath:

> By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. (In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings. Sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.)

(via: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392>)

Now, the NSA's lawyers absolutely _did_ lie under oath to the Supreme Court.

What happened because of that? Absolutely fuckall.

So, even if Clapper was testifying under oath, I'd expect absolutely nothing would have happened. (Don't forget that this is mostly the same Congress that gave every telecom company that (very, _very_ much illegally) permitted NSA warrantless access to their phone and data networks _retroactive_ immunity from prosecution.)

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#450

Post by sashank_1509 »

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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN