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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#721

Post by NotYourLawyer »

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 don’t think it was the campaign that paid her, was it? I thought it was just some Trump business entity.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#722

Post by Kye »

krapp wrote: post #127
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #85

Is it weird that I don't care? When he was in office he drove me insane. Now I really couldn't be bothered. I think I'm desensitized to... politics, or justice, or something.

No. When Trump was in power, he mattered and his nonsense had real consequences, and he had a presence on all of the major social media platforms, and people willing to take violence to the streets for him. Now he's shrieking in all caps in his little corner of the internet and making deranged threats about "consequences" if he's arrested and... almost no one seems to care. He's no longer leader of the free world, he…

I want the next Trump to know they're not above the law. This indictment is good practice for our system. Trump caught it off guard because so much ran on tradition and the assumption that presidents think the constitution is rad because they pledge to protect it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#723

Post by vitus »

mightybyte wrote: post #661
protocolture wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office

This depends on the state. Being convicted of a felony in Florida bars you from running for public office or voting in the state (until granted clemency). A conviction in Georgia would similarly bar Trump from voting in Florida, but not one in New York (which does not disenfranchise felons).

But yes, it doesn't affect his ability to run for federal office, even if it would make it hard for him to campaign from jail.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#724

Post by brodouevencode »

pc_edwin wrote: post #717

You would think a topic like this would be somewhat lower ranked in a tech-oriented forum but it seems even those of us who are technically inclined cant evade the pull of politics. As side note, heres my 2 cents: This is extremely dangerous and unprecedented. Its a long standing practice common law tradition to refrain from prosecuting political leaders unless a serious crime is involved (Prosecutorial discretion).…

What sets this apart is that the payout is campaign finance related, which makes it a felony. Otherwise it would have been a misdemeanor and beyond statutory limits. The DOJ never took this case because the evidence was so flimsy.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#725

Post by Blackstrat »

Blackstrat wrote: post #708

1. The FEC/DOJ elected not to pursue the case in 2018. 2. Cohen's attorneys produced a letter saying Cohen was not reimbursed for the $130K 3. Stormy Daniels attorneys produced a letter denying that an affair ever occurred. 4. North Carolina failed to convict John Edwards in 2012 of a similar charge, though with actual campaign funds. 5. Bill Clinton settled Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit in 1998, while a pres…

I find it humorous how a simple list of factual statements can be down voted by some people here.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#726

Post by naasking »

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 problem here is that, of course, this was just a way to make Cohen an intermediary for the process of the campaign paying Daniels. This is problem in two ways. First, it goes against the campaign spending limits, so goes against campaign laws. Second, it's a form of falsifying business records.

The interesting bit is that Hillary Clinton also violated campaign finance law in a similar way for funding the Steele dossier. She was fined $8000. People are really going to have a field day with this.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#727

Post by nullc »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #716
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 is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it is NY State laws in play (likely campaign finance laws), not Federal. If it were Federal it would be prosecuted by Federal attorney's in a Federal court. - A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed li…

> could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account

My understanding is that there is no limit to the amount of a candidate's own money they are permitted to spend on their campaign. So what legitimate state interest could be advanced by laws that nitpick the exact boundary between what is and isn't campaign funding when it comes to the candidate's own money?

Do candidates have to report all their food expenditures as campaign funding-- since they obviously couldn't campaign if they don't eat? :)

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#728

Post by _pigpen__ »

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…

The bar should be fairly air tight. Cohen has already served time for this crime. Moreover, he was charged with acting in conspiracy with “Individual 1”. While Trump will face a separate trial, with all that entails, in practice there was already a successful trial for at least some of Trump’s crime. In your example, both payments would be legitimate business expenses.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#729

Post by macintux »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #686
brutus1213 wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m not sure he’s going to lie. He seems to have a keen awareness of the perils of lying when there are actual legal consequences.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#730

Post by myvoiceismypass »

random_upvoter wrote: post #715
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 I'm not mistaken Obama's campaign was fined for the same offense -- non-disclosed campaign distributions. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/07/obama-campai...

You are mistaken, these are not the same offense.
Post reply on HN