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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#681

Post by auggierose »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #669
auggierose wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, Mic…

I didn't misunderstand anything here, and I didn't mean "weak" in any legal sense. These are all technicalities, and many people will not think that any real crime has been committed. Furthermore, things you present here as facts still need to be proven in a court, which might be another technicality that evens out the other technicalities.

Edit: I guess I DID misunderstand something here. Thanks for the clarification. Let's see how it goes, and if they found some real meat.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#682

Post by berniedurfee »

pseingatl wrote: post #572
unixgoddess wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same question here...

Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson , precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.

Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#683

Post by richrichardsson »

janalsncm wrote: post #499

Sounds like we will know the specific charges on Tuesday when Trump turns himself in.

I thought I read something that said he stated he won't go quietly or was it just hearsay?

I'm curious (as an outsider) about what are the chances his arrest might cause unrest?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#684

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#685

Post by ChatGTP »

brutus1213 wrote: post #677
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…

No at all a Trump fan but another one of these things that could easily backfire and make him look like a hero.

It wreaks of some type of attempt to politically assassinate him before the next election.

Like I said, not a fan, just kind of seems suspicious.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#686

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

brutus1213 wrote: post #677
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…

I'd imagine part of the strategy is to get Trump on the stand.

He's going to lie (because he can't help it) and that opens him up to perjury charges.

But there are bizarre aspects to this case. One is that Trump associates like Giuliani and Deripaska were raided, but there don't seem to have been any subsequent charges.

Another is that there's so much on Trump - from tax dodging, to Jan 6, to links to suspect foreign money - that it seems like a strange case to highlight.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#687

Post by nasablasted »

noduerme wrote: post #658

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…

You are simply uninformed. Many democracies have held formers leaders accountable for crimes. France, Italy, South Korea, Japan, etc. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/world/trump-world-leaders...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#688

Post by overlordalex »

pdpi wrote: post #642
abigail95 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's even easier than that - Cohen already pled guilty and was convicted for this campaign finance violation. During the trial Cohen explicitly named Trump as a co-conspirator while the prosecutor decided to call him "Individual 1" in the filings

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#689

Post by nemo44x »

ahiknsr wrote: post #577
stuckinhell wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. It's would have far better to just defeat Trump in 2024, and let him go slink into the shadows. Now a red line has been crossed, the GOP is seems to be gearing up for civil war. They keep talking about the 6 Christians martyred and how no corporation or the "Biden Regime" has acknowledged them. Desantis has come out on Trump's side, even though days ago he said he wouldn't. Escalation is occurring, and it's she…

> Now a red line has been crossed Now we crossed a red line? I thought Trump crossed it when he tried to overthrow the government?

Did he though? Does anyone really believe that other than the most breathless opponents and news stations?

I never voted for the guy but it’s clear that the “insurrection” was hardly that and more of a protest that turned into a lawless riot. Of which we’d seen politicians and media celebrate a lot of over the previous year.

Isn’t a riot the language of the unheard, after all?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#690

Post by treis »

pdpi wrote: post #652
makomk wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yup, you're right: > Candidate contributions to their own campaigns are not subject to any limits. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...

They're getting him on the technicality that it was not him but one of his corporations that made the payment.
Post reply on HN