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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#631

Post by ChicagoDave »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #625

NY grand juries (regular people) do all of the actual work without prompting from the DA. The only thing the DA does is provide witnesses and physical evidence and read the laws relating to the evidence. The grand jury asks all the questions of the witnesses and reviews all the evidence. Then they vote to indict or not in private. The DA asks if they voted and how. They report their votes. At no point is the DA coerc…

I suppose the political argument would be that the DA manufactured evidence and coached witnesses what to say in order to “get Trump.”

But there are dozens of people involved in a grand jury and there is just no way to manufacture anything without it becoming public knowledge. Someone in the NYC AD office is very likely a Trump voter and they’d never play along.

This is just a standard legal process with an extraordinary target.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#632

Post by cma »

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…

> what worldview would brag about being hated by UN

Surely not the constitutional originalists, since under the constitution and its original interpretation the UN Charter is the supreme law of the land.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#633

Post by BrandoElFollito »

dragonwriter wrote: post #617
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interes…

> Since there is the concept of sealed indictment, why are all the indictments not sealed (or none of them)? There are a variety of reasons to seal an indictment (which will only remain sealed until the defendant is arrested), one of which os to facilitate arrest and avoid flight, another is to protect information in the indictment for as long as possible, especially if there is information that may be sensitive to o…

Thank you - as mentioned in a parallel comment, I was completely mistaken about the reason for the seal. Now this is clear. Thanks.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#634

Post by abigail95 »

joosters wrote: post #628
pdpi wrote: post #605

I commented on my understanding of the situation on reddit a while ago. Copy/pasting here: He paid off Stormy Daniels to keep her from talking about their relationship. Paying her to stay silent is 100% legal, there is absolutely no issue with an NDA like that. The illegal part isn't the what, it's the how. Political campaigning laws set a limited budget for how much money you can spend on campaigning, which is defin…

The difficulty here, as I understand it, is that Trump could have plenty of reasons for paying off someone, not all of which are to do with political campaigning. For instance, he could argue that he paid off SD to avoid damage to his relationship with his wife or family, and that it had nothing to do with his campaigning. (In fact, you could argue that this defence is even stronger because he is Donald Trump. He has…

Even worse for the intent angle is that he did it through his lawyer. Proving someone acted with illegal intent by following the advice of their lawyer seems to be an oxymoron.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#635

Post by markdown »

benjaminwootton wrote: post #630
pdpi wrote: post #605

I commented on my understanding of the situation on reddit a while ago. Copy/pasting here: He paid off Stormy Daniels to keep her from talking about their relationship. Paying her to stay silent is 100% legal, there is absolutely no issue with an NDA like that. The illegal part isn't the what, it's the how. Political campaigning laws set a limited budget for how much money you can spend on campaigning, which is defin…

If this is the case, it seems to be a _relatively_ technical breach of the rules. Maybe intent would get to the heart of the matter. I'm no expert, but it's surprising to me that they would indict a previous president over this with all of the ramifications.

> indict a previous president over this with all of the ramifications.

Some would argue that the consequences are positive. It's important for every citizen to know that nobody is above the law.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#636

Post by fredgrott »

Something interesting, number of corrupt US presidents:

GOP

Warren Warding, Teapot OIL reserve scandal

Richard Nixon, Watergate which was funded by illegal Corp political funds which were money laundered through Mexican banks

Donald Trump, Alledged money laundering to fund hush money to porn star, alledge russian money in Apartment sales via Netherlands anonyomous corps, etc.

I cannot seem to find any factual stuff on corrupt Democratic Presidents, aha aha while the Electoral College act was inspired by the Civil War events including the only time Democrats attempted voter fraud none of the elected Democrat presidents were involved in that effort.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#637

Post by guelo »

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.

As if Trump didn't corruptly use the power of his office to obstruct a lot of those investigations.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#639

Post by abigail95 »

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…

Does anyone have standing to sue under 4th amendment spying violations?

I thought this was settled years ago

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#640

Post by esja »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #594
tpoacher wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse. As many have pointed out: "If he gets arrested, he's your next president." Wouldn't be the first leader whose arrest led to raging popularity and revolt.

Prominent Republicans (like John Bolton) have claimed that Democrats are intentionally targetting Trump to increase his popularity with his base so that he'll definately become the nominee and then be easy to beat. Whether you believe that or not, its wild that we're in such a position that claims like that could be made.

It's not wild. It's precisely what they did in 2015, as revealed by WikiLeaks: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaig...
Post reply on HN