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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#551

Post by vl »

djha-skin wrote: post #268
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…

I understand your point and understanding both sides of the country is very important, but so also is justice. I mean, what if he is guilty? If 48% of the population is ticked off by a guilty conviction that theoretically could be correct, that shouldn't stop us from convicting a criminal. I'm not saying Trump is a criminal; I am not on the jury and do not have the facts. But I'm saying someone should be convicted if…

But all high-level politicians are criminals. And perhaps we would be better off if they are all in jail.

The problem is that coming for ex-presidents in particular leads to them not leaving office and becoming dictators. And this is far worse outcome.

Notice how Trump didn’t come for Obama, although he vocally promised to do so. Then errors of his ways were explained to him and after election he stopped talking about it completely. Now social and political contract is broken in regard to him, while he did demonstrate necessary restraint himself.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#552

Post by Seam0nkey »

eldritch_4ier wrote: post #498
wodenokoto wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

[flagged]

>he doesn't like laws that go after social media platforms

From a legal perspective you don't gotta be biased to reach the conclusion that there's not much states can do. Section 230 and and the 1st amendment are both crazy strong tools in their pockets.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#553

Post by rufus_foreman »

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.

"Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders"

The founders of the United States were criminals and traitors.

"we must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately"

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#554

Post by FPGAhacker »

Sai_ wrote: post #524
skellington wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but they weren't being persecuted for obviously political reasons. Usually the ruling class avoids eating their own because they know then that the guillotine can come for them. But in this case, Trump is too much of a danger to the war-machine establishment. Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier and improperly reported it and was fined for it. They didn't try to press criminal charges against her for that or for…

> Did you notice how talk of Trump's crimes related to classified documents disappeared completely after Biden was found with improperly handled classified documents? Well, it could also be because Biden's discovery (a) was smaller and self-reported, (b) his legal team helped in resolving the situation, AND (c) the documents have been recovered in both cases and the ball is now in competent authority's court. It's li…

Analogies are imperfect, but I think a little more detail would make it the analogy fair.

Let me restate your example of running over someone:

Let's say you and I both run over someone. I did it last year, and you did it 6 years ago. You say nothing for 6 years, I say nothing for 1 year. I get caught, and provide no cooperation whatsoever. You watch me get caught and excoriated in the press and decide you need to fess up and cooperate. 6 years after the fact.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#555

Post by HyperSane »

eldritch_4ier wrote: post #498
wodenokoto wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

[flagged]

Trump has made it impossible for anyone to remain unbiased about Trump.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#556

Post by vl »

Mavvie wrote: post #434
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…

> please quiz yourself what worldview would brag about being hated by UN. If you cant understand, you literally can't understand anything about ~48% of the country For a non-American, could someone kindly explain what worldview would brag about being hated by UN?

Haha, while other commenters spew some nonsense, what actually happened is that Desantis signed controversial anti-riot bill that was later condemned by UN. This is beyond farcical since there are many countries with far stricter anti-riot bills.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#557

Post by unixgoddess »

brigandish wrote: post #525
analog31 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does it protect the rest of us if "well defended people" means "those able to afford better lawyers"?

same question here...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#558

Post by zarzavat »

eldritch_4ier wrote: post #498
wodenokoto wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

[flagged]

Did you watch his video? LegalEagle thinks the charges against Trump have serious weaknesses. Perhaps not as biased as you think.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#559

Post by unixgoddess »

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…

that's how it seems to me too, but CNN claims "30 counts", so hopefully they have more to it.

If they only have a weak case, it will be easy to pass it as an attempt to prevent him from running 2024, so it will only serve to further polarize the country

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#560

Post by vl »

hrunt wrote: post #365
xpe wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. There would also be justifiable outrage by reasonable people. Pardoning Trump would continue the example set by Gerald Ford in pardoning Nixon. "Helping the country heal" seems hollow to me. To use a few metaphors: 1. Physical healing can't properly happen until the foreign object is cleared and infection removed from the body. 2. Mental healing doesn't fully happen until person comes to terms with what's ha…

Trump and Nixon are also two very different situations. When Ford pardoned Nixon, Nixon was done with politics. He had no chance of coming back as a politician. If he had not resigned, he was going to be impeached and he was going to be removed from office. There was bipartisan support for his removal. Ford spent his political capital to pardon Nixon and heal the nation, but he also knew that Nixon would not be a fac…

Currently Trump is devisive candidate for republican party. Ironically dems would benefit if he is around and party is fractured.
Post reply on HN