Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

nytimes.com

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#661

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 throu…

> 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.

The thing that surprised me yesterday was learning that being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office or the office of President of the United States! So it seems like a pretty impotent "hanging". I had assumed that barring him from running for re-election was the major motivation behind pursing these indictments, but I guess that's not the case. So that suggests that these moves are mainly about public opinion? If that's what it is, then this particular indictment seems like the weakest of the possible ones that have been talked about. Taking all this into account, I can't help but think that this kind of plays into Trump's desire to be the center of attention.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#662
post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Wow...who needs friends with enemies like that. But jeez...you'd think they would have at least learned their lesson. I was pretty convinced 2 years ago (around the time of the injecting hydrochloric acid comments) that Trump would be almost universally be considered a national embarrassment by now. If there weren't powerful people running around deliberately trying to inflate support for him hoping it will somehow work out in their own interests I'm still pretty sure he would be.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#663
post #81

if anyones wondering why an indictment might not have charges announced, its generally because the prosecution is working to limit the ability of the defendant to influence the court of public appeal before the trial. The prosecution is certainly versed in former president Trumps histrionic theatricality.

So it remains sealed until the trial?

That would be a very effective way of getting convictions :), but no, he has to know the charges against him so that he can provide a defense.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there are those pesky pictures of Hunter smoking crack while saying he's clean on a federal gun background check. Thats a biggie. Also, unless he was in Reno, paying for prostitutes is illegal.

Were these photos from the laptop? If so, as I said, the chain of evidence was destroyed through incompetence. Do you understand that nobody is saying not to charge Hunter or his father? By all means, do so if you believe that a crime has been committed, but I don't see that you have sufficient evidence.

His autobiography.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

It is possible to be both biased (hoping that the charges against Trump stick) and realistic (assessing on the basis of professional expertise that the charges aren't as strong as one would like).

I'm under the impression that unfortunately such a basic level of maturity is unusual when USA politics and USA law are concerned, let alone the combination of both.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#666
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.

Also surprising in the wider context of politicians generally being involved in shenanigans across the board, this one is quite particular, and still not that conclusive.

I mean I'm pretty sure we could find some serious insider trading crimes without too much investigation...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#667

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…

> two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 different realities.

This is not true. Republican voters have been proven to be able to discern fake news when monetarily motivated. They only swallow lies for free. Here is the paper on it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01540-w

> There is a huge amount of democratic energy on both sides.

This is not true, as the entire gain on the right has been on the back of disenfranchment, gerrymandering, populism and threats of anti democratic measures.

This goes from having no polls in democratic areas, to passing laws making it hard, confusing or impossible to register and get mail in ballots on time.

Having people with guns near voting stations, having the sitting president asking people "to find the votes", having the media peddle a stolen election when the president lost the popular vote twice.

None of that is democratic energy.Then again the GOP went to 2024 without a manifesto. First time in political history that a running party doesn't even make promises, but who cares, they were not there to win votes but to make others lose them.

> The only reason this hasn't led to civil war like situation is because

Its because one side is economically, and numerically dwarfing the other. What are states with the economy of a third world country and the population of a medium city gonna do if federal taxes stop propping up their economy. Since 2008 not a single Republican state has paid more in taxes than has taken in federal income. They are all sucking the tit of the federal gov and a "civil war" situation would end in about 5 minutes when their entire military doesn't get paid.

> Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history? If your instant answer wasn't Obama

God you would have to explain this one. Because you have a tape of Nixon's aid saying they invented the war on drugs to convict black people and left wing protestors. And that is hard to top as both failed policy, criminal behaviour, loss of gdp, freedom, politically motivated state terrorism... like jesus to top that you would have to prove Obama did 9/11

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#668

I think this is unfortunate because it cheapens American democracy even further in the eyes of adversaries who want nothing more than to mock us on the world stage. Whatever your view of the balance between the need to enforce laws vs. keeping national politics out of law enforcement: From a foreign policy point of view, it's a catastrophe. There are three classes of countries, as I see it, that indict or jail leader…

>...no sane English colonist would have chosen to renounce the crown...

Consider that while the rate of economic productivity was much lower during the colonial era, the average rate of tax was between 1% and 1.5%. I have seen figures quoted as high as 3%.

For this, a revolution was mounted. The indignation of being taxed by parliament (not the crown) without a chance to vote compelled colonists to take up arms. Contrast this to today's general apathy towards the political process, low voter turnout, higher rates of taxation and unending regulation of citizens' lives.

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-...

South Korea also has a history of jailing leaders:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye#Arrest,_detentio...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Myung-bak#Controversies_an...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty weak case. How do you know? The charges are sealed. Also there are 34 charges, and 12 people agreed there is substancial evidence to go ahead with the case.

It's about him paying money to a porn star not to talk about their affair? That's not a crime. Now I can see how they can find some stuff in there to make SOMETHING stick, but if the same kind of scrutiny would be applied in general, 50% of the US population would go to jail. Oh wait, a large percentage of the US population actually IS in jail.

> It's about him paying money to a porn star not to talk about their affair?

No. It isn't.

> That's not a crime

Also not what he did.

> Now I can see how they can find some stuff in there to make SOMETHING stick

So you called it a weak case. Despite not seeing the 34 charges and severely misunderstanding the basic facts of the situation?

Maybe its not a weak case and you just do not know about it?

Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen paid 130,000 dollars to a pornstar to hush about sex she had with Trump in 2006 while Melania was pregnant. He did this weeks before the election. This can be considered campaign financing violation, similar to what Clinton did with the Steele Dossier. Despite this, he lied about it, and a number of other charges were discovered. So he pleaded guilty and got a 6 year ruling.

During this trial he admitted Trump told him to pay that money, this opened the investigation into Trump's involvement. The first discovery was that Trump had paid Cohen with money from his business to give him back the 130,000$. That is misclassification of business files to commit a crime, which is a felony, the investigation fo said felony opened up a ton of documentation into Trump's finances and business. The DA got access to Trumps taxes in 2020, and after over 2 years of investigation are now presenting 34 charges, all of which the jury found substancial evidence to indict.

What started it, a misdemeanor of paying off someone to not make you look bad right before an election, opened up the investigation into the entire trove of potentially illegal business fillings. Some of which appear to be felonies.

Lets see when the case is unsealead if it's so weak, but it is not looking good.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Cohen and Stormy Danielle changed their stories. What they say is unreliable. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-stormy-daniels-admit... https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/how-long-before-cohens-lawyer-...

Only thing that matters: what is said under oath.

The rest is marketing/BS.

Post reply on HN