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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#671

Post by public_defender »

anonymousiam wrote: post #544
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…

The indictment was filed under seal, so why does CNN and the New York Times know what's in it?

Think of it like a book where the publisher releases a preview chapter.

There are hints in the court record which, despite sealing of an indictment, would give a determined investigator enough information to speculate on the charges in the grand jury. The DA office probably just provided the media with some top-line updates on the process so that there would be a general understanding of the big news to head off speculation or a leak.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#672

Post by wizofaus »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #528
jshen wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton represent progressive principles? Hardly. Even Barack Obama, who opposed gay marriage when he ran for office was closer to being a Republican than a Progressive in his political rhetoric (though he is clearly a progressive at heart).

Al Gore at least seemed to have some progressive appeal on the environmentalism front, but yes, as a non-American that was exactly my thought - there's been no real indication from federal elections in the US in recent decades at least that very many Americans could be considered genuinely progressive in their political leaning. Pretty much all the Democrats supported policies that would be considered quite conservative (or downright regressive) in many other Western nations. None of which has anything much to do with my dismay that Trump still has the support he does.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#673

Post by notahacker »

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…

I'm not convinced it's the strongest possible case that could be brought against Trump, but I think he'd have a tough job convincing people that he arranged to pay someone in the middle of an election campaign in 2016 not to talk about something that happened in 2006 without any expectation of it having any impact upon his campaign, particularly not when his lawyer already pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws for his part in the payment.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#674

Post by talkingtab »

misssocrates wrote: post #445
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.

Since when has the law applied to all the people equally?

Never. But the intent of the law is that it applies to people equally. And we have a jury to temper that with some humanity. And here is a question - is there another system that is better?

We use the word "democracy" without understanding of what it means and what the intent is. If our best definition of democracy is "voting" then we have become a cargo cult democracy.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#675

Post by actionfromafar »

anon291 wrote: post #402
dmix wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it’s a conviction I hope the sentencing is appropriate. Wealthy men making sex workers wealthier in order to not disrupt their ostensibly conservative social values is pretty low on my own criminal punishment tier list (especially compared to something that happened during the presidency like the burglary of election-connected properties by Nixon, or more favourable to Clinton’s consensual acts vs his credibi…

I don't think anyone has ever accused donald trump of 'ostensibly conservative' social values. Everyone who voted for him knew his behavior in these areas and voted for him despite it, not because of it.

That sounds... wrong. I think many who voted for him appreciate and laud his social values.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#676

Post by dbbk »

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…

The gist of it is, the hush money payments were covered up by filing false business records claiming it was for "lawyer's fees". That's the first issue. The second issue is that it can be considered an improper campaign contribution because it was to benefit the campaign.

In order for it to be a felony, you need to connect the two together. Otherwise it's a misdemeanour.

In terms of it being a "weak case", I would just say let's wait to see what the prosecutors' argument is - this will be released when the indictment is unsealed on Thursday. It's a document-heavy case. There is a witness who carried out the crime (Michael Cohen), and other witnesses as well. I would also posit that the prosecutors, and a grand jury (who unanimously voted to indict) would not take the unprecedented step to charge a former President unless they thought there was a strong case.

So, let's just wait and see.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#677

Post by brutus1213 »

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…

Not a lawyer, nor am I American. No horse in this except maybe a citizen of the world. This seems like a weak case to me. For a former president and polarizing figure, you would think the bar on prosecution would be air tight. If he goes to jail for a crime the population (or his support base) considers is trivial or if he does not get convicted, it raises Trump's stock to the stratosphere. Perhaps if he goes to jail, he can't run for office? Still .. seems very dubious based on the info in the news so far.

Here is an analogy I thought of. Say my firm's database gets ransomewared. If I pay the ransom directly, that may be a particular way of accounting. But say, I pay McCohen Computer Associates to fix the problem. Why do I not book it as a computer expense? I am not an accountant but am curious how this works.

Also, booking something in the wrong accounting category, doesn't seem like a very convincing charge. On the other hand, Tax and election violations are very serious.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#678

Post by dbbk »

TeeMassive wrote: post #508
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…

Just the statute of limitation should have made any judge laugh. It's the justice system of New York state that's on trial, not Trump.

It's well within the statute of limitations for 2 reasons;

1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID

2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#679

Post by PM_me_your_math »

dbbk wrote: post #676
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…

The gist of it is, the hush money payments were covered up by filing false business records claiming it was for "lawyer's fees". That's the first issue. The second issue is that it can be considered an improper campaign contribution because it was to benefit the campaign. In order for it to be a felony, you need to connect the two together. Otherwise it's a misdemeanour. In terms of it being a "weak case", I would ju…

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#680

Post by notahacker »

roenxi wrote: post #561
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)

> (she was hushed to aid the presidential campaign) It seems more likely that this is pretty routine with Trump and had not much to do with the campaign. I doubt he started sleeping with hot women only after deciding to run for president; and there is probably a lot of money in it for the women. One of the perks of dating billionaires.

He certainly didn't start sleeping with hot women only after deciding to run for president, but he absolutely did make a payoff to someone he [allegedly] slept with ten years earlier during the middle of his campaign. Hard to argue the timing is unrelated to campaign objectives, even in the likely event the Trump Organization paid hush money to other people related to other disputes or allegations long before Trump established himself as a political figure,
Post reply on HN