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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#641

Post by protocolture »

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…

Yes it seems weak.

However:

1 iirc Grand Jury's are the ones that get to do everything behind closed doors. So we wouldnt know if they had a smoking gun until after trial possibly.

2 The US has a history of pursuing people it doesn't like through financial crimes. Rico etc.

I think its easy to see this in the lens of "oh its another attack on trump that will go away again" and if you experience your entire life through the highs and lows of the media cycle thats quite possibly going to be the case. But I think each prong of attack opens up a little more of Trumps weakness and eventually, either through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#642

Post by pdpi »

abigail95 wrote: post #634
joosters wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's well understood that Cohen was Trump's fixer, so I don't think that'll be that big a hurdle.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#643

Post by bobsil1 »

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.

The opposite — the US constitution is more like a slaver bill of rights, rife with plantation oligarch backdoors. The checks and balances are akin to NBA owners negotiating how not to ruin each other. Those rights originally were only extended to white men formally, and only rich white men in effect.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#644

Post by makomk »

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…

I'm pretty sure there is no cap on how much Trump was allowed to spend on his own campaign; that's why US politics is filled with so many rich people spending so much on their campaigns for office (sometimes for very little effect, as happened with Bloomberg). What's capped is how much any single other individual can contribute. Also, it's probably not all that clear that the payment should count as campaigning; if I remember rightly there was some speculation at the time it first became public that Trump might've funded the payment with campaign funds and people came up with equally plausible arguments that this would've been illegal because it obviously wasn't a campaign expense.

The whole thing is... probably not great grounds on which to carry out the first criminal indictment of a former US president, but the state of US politics and media in 2023 is such that outside of Trump circles the issues will be largely ignored.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#645

Post by esja »

jshen wrote: post #422
stuckinhell wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Trump has nearly religious following that scares many many people on the left and right. They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis. I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.

The democratic nominee for President has won the popular vote in something like 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. A majority of Americans do have progressive principles, but America is a minority rule country at the moment.

Those facts don't support your conclusion. The popular vote is not even close to "a majority of Americans". Something like 120 million American adults didn't even vote in 2016, versus around 66 and 63 million who voted for Clinton and Trump respectively. Clinton winning would still have been "minority rule" by this measure.

Also, broadly speaking, being progressive means wanting change and being conservative means being more comfortable with the status quo. It seems obvious that of the 120 million people who weren’t motivated to vote, more of those would be latent conservatives. Or at least, it’s very hard to see a progressive majority in there.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#646

Post by bobsil1 »

trafficante wrote: post #509
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely askin…

The most interesting aspect to this indictment is that, until now, there’s been a clear reluctance to go all the way on nailing Trump for the sort of extremely common crimes that many of our wonderful politicians/wealthy engage in on a regular basis. It’s why they didn’t stick him on emoluments, nepotism, tax dodging - even “improperly storing classified documents” somehow turned out to be a brush too broad. So now A…

Yes. Dems were never going to, for example, indict Trump on selling US policy to the Saudis, that’s a key political-racket revenue source.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#647

Post by bobsil1 »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212
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.

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely askin…

Criminal impunity for political elites backstops their entire racket: laundering hard bribes into soft, insider trading and so on. They've blocked T•••• prosecution for things like the coup because federal law enforcement report to them, and they're wedded to the immunity. Only the most egregious get prosecuted, e.g. the Congressman insider-trading on the phone in the background of a public T•••• event.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#648

Post by bobsil1 »

stuckinhell wrote: post #332
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely askin…

Because Trump has nearly religious following that scares many many people on the left and right. They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis. I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.

"nearly half" — T•••• controls ~a quarter of the GOP, which is ~a third of US voters, so < 10% of US electorate.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#649

Post by bobsil1 »

webdood90 wrote: post #194
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.

I'm 100% in support of applying the law to all people. What I don't love is the timing of it. It makes it easily dismissible as political theatre. Wait until after the election.

T•••• should've been arrested in the hours after the Capitol attack, like Brazil did with its coup attempt.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#650

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

stuckinhell wrote: post #369
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.

Half the country thought Hillary Clinton should be arrested for emails. Not a good metric.

And no DA could find 12 people to agree to press charges?

Maybe think about the implications of that one

Post reply on HN