Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#451

Post by guelo » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:13 AM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #426

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 infor…

I've seen arguments in the right-ophere that Cohen improperly plead guilty to a non-crime. Which seems like a weird thing for a high-level well-connected lawyer to do.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#452

Post by paul7986 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:13 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…

No Trump fan but this is more political/media theater B.S. and brought on by all his many deep pocketed enemies. He surely has tons due to his awful mouth (shut it and do your job like Biden does for the people or Bush did or Obama).

Nothing will happen to him just more lame reality TV type drama that gets ratings.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#453

Post by notch898a » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

laidoffamazon wrote: post #439

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…

The most criminal president in history is Trump by virtue of two impeachments, with one getting huge crossover support.

devils advocate: Or you could say the most vindicated.... impeached twice but never convicted.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#454

Post by laidoffamazon » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

uptownfunk wrote: post #380

Banks collapse. Weakening of the dollar. Former American president indicted. Plots to pause and inhibit AI technologies development through petition. Never ending rain and gloom on the west coast. School shootings. I am not one for conspiracy but it really does not seem like the tides are moving in the United States favor right now. Why does every day feel like we are getting closer to some kind of tipping point? Int…

It’s because you’re ignorant of history. If anything we are closer to morning in America than anytime since 2000. No new wars, massive advancements in hard tech and AI, and the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years.

The new American century is being built as we speak by the most brilliant and hardworking humans on the planet, I suggest you not overlook it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#455

Post by matteotom » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

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…

While it would certainly be difficult or impossible to find a jury of people who’ve never heard of Trump, I think it’s easy for us online news-followers to underestimate the number of people who don’t really follow news or politics. Sure Trump was a controversial president, but so was Obama and Bush and Clinton and etc - if you only follow the vague shape of the news and not the specifics.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#456

Post by a-user-you-like » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:15 AM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #67

I think it sets a good precedent. If indicting past presidents (and vice presidents) for crimes committed while in office (or while running for office), well, the courts are going to be busy on this front for years to come. Bush and Cheney are certainly candidates, r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims. The list could be expanded to include charges related to the unConstitutional domestic spying progra…

Yes, for WMD, president Obama for weaponizing the IRS. Both ought to be brought to trial.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#457

Post by laidoffamazon » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:15 AM UTC

notch898a wrote: post #453

laidoffamazon wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most criminal president in history is Trump by virtue of two impeachments, with one getting huge crossover support.

devils advocate: Or you could say the most vindicated.... impeached twice but never convicted.

Nope, just the most criminal.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#458

Post by sanderjd » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:16 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #300

unethical_ban wrote: post #163

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that he is guilty of this crime. Should we ignore it? If we further acknowledge that he is a nitwit without an inkling of knowledge about history, respect for democracy or the United States unless it aligns with his aggrandizement, then is this not like trying to nail Al Capone for tax fraud? Are their supposedly intelligent people on this forum who truly believe Donald Trum…

Most countries immunize declared candidates for parliaments or the presidency, because it's a basic premise of democracy. If the population, by direct referendum, believes this person should be in government, whatever forces that are doing the prosecuting are a minority. Makes sense to have some minor flexibility in this standard, so people aren't continually running for elections in order to stay out of prison. But…

> Most countries immunize declared candidates for parliaments or the presidency

I don't think this is true factually, and even if it is, I disagree that it's a good policy. But even if I thought it was a good policy, it isn't the policy we have in the US.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#459

Post by wodenokoto » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:16 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…

My understanding from legal eagle on YouTube is that the payment was done illegally. Both in terms of taxes and in terms of how you are allowed to spend money on campaigning (she was hushed to aid the presidential campaign)

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#460

Post by otterley » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:17 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?

In a sense, any prosecution of a political figure can be considered political. But what's the alternative? Treating political figures as immune from criminal prosecution? What would that mean for the rule of law? And what would that mean for our expectations of our leadership -- who, if anything, should be held to a higher standard as model actors for our society and our children?