Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#531

Post by BrandoElFollito » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:53 AM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #438

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…

From what I read, the indictment is sealed. Does that mean we don't really know precisely what the charges are yet? I'm willing to wait and see. Also, from everything I've read, well defended people are remarkably hard to convict. This is as it should be, as it may let some people go scot free, but protects the rest of us. Convicting Trump will be hard. It might fail. Does this mean that charges should not be brought…

Since there is the concept of sealed indictment, why are all the indictments not sealed (or none of them)?

I guess this is to preserve the person that is accused (because an accusation is easier to make than to defend, given the visibility decided by the media, supporters, etc)) - do why some are more preserved then others?

Since the topic is a hot one, please note that I am from France and have no stakes nor interest in the political discussion, I am genuinely interested in that concept of this seal which we do not have AFAICT.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#532

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:53 AM UTC

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #493

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.

8 years of investigations, two special prosecutor, two impeachments 3-4 non federal investigations all for different crimes... its almost comical to list all of that out and still have people think this isnt purely political.

"he was exceptionally criminal so they investigated him a lot more than normal" is a weird thing to use as evidence of political motivation.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#533

Post by esafak » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:57 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!

Stick them in the same cell?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#534

Post by mike_d » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:59 AM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #467

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's too early to say if it's a weak case because we just don't know the details. There are (AFAIK unconfirmed) reports that there are 34 charges in the indictment. You wouldn't get that just from the Stormy Daniels payoff so, if true, there's more to this indictment. Maybe related to the Trump Organization fraud? We can only speculate. This will be unsealed when Trump is processed and arraigned. I believe this is se…

> Note that processing includes the mug shot, fingerprinting and DNA.

He fought E Jean Carroll for three years to avoid giving a DNA sample that could have proved his guilt or innocence in the sexual assault case.

Once he is booked he will have a record in the national DNA database (CODIS) that can be checked against any physical evidence such as Carroll's dress as well as outstanding unsolved cases.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#535

Post by censor_me » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:00 AM UTC

DanHulton wrote: post #527

jameshart wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side... England did actually arrest, try and convict the King once. Also did the same to an ex-queen, in Lady Jane Grey. After first having un-queened her, which is also a thing that cannot be done . The thing about Britain's constitutional arrangements is that there are many things which 'can't' be done, which it turns out simply 'aren't' done.

I mean, that's really true of any sort of law or political arrangement. They can all be broken or ignored. To mangle a quote, the law isn't power - power is power.

[dead]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#536

Post by brigandish » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:02 AM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #443

shagie wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lega…

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

What is the point in such a statement?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#537

Post by youngtaff » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:05 AM UTC

michaelbarton wrote: post #364

zarzavat wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify. The King of the UK is above criminal law. The monarch of the UK cannot be arrested or charged with an offence, or be personally involved in criminal proceedings. That is similar to the immunity given to the sitting US President. What is different is that monarch is not really expected to obey the law either. For example, the Prime Minister was fined for illegally not wearing a seatbelt. If the king d…

All good points. A small note though I believe the Queen started paying taxes in exchange for the state’s help rebuilding Windsor caste after the 92 fire. So seems more quid pro quo than something she felt was the right thing to do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Windsor_Castle_fire

Still didn’t pay inheritance tax on her personal wealth though

There are also all the laws the monarch / monarch’s lawyers interfered with e.g. police can’t enter Sandringham Estate without an invite, leaseholders on the Duchy of Cornwall are excluded from buying their freehold

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#538

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:06 AM UTC

varunjain99 wrote: post #381

I appreciate that this is not the most clear cut charge against Trump and potentially helps his chances at reelection (theoretically). Anyone else would've been at least indicted as well. This is an indication that the rule of law is prevailing. Even former presidents aren't above the law.

[deleted]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#539

Post by adam_arthur » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:06 AM UTC

Just going to drop this here, make of it what you will.

"By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Cole and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elect...

The truth is you could pin a charge on a large percentage of politicians if you were determined to. There's clearly an element of selective prosecution here, regardless of whether the charge is valid. To make a martyr of Trump over small time crimes is not going to be good for the country in the end.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#540

Post by gonzo » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:07 AM UTC

The indictment is sealed. Nobody knows what it says, not even Trump his lawyers. Trump and his lawyers might know Tuesday at Trump’s arraignment.

CNN Law Enforcement analyst John Miller reported (based on two sources) to Erin Burnett that the indictment has 34 counts relating to falsification of business documents/records.