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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#751

Post by NotYourLawyer »

pc86 wrote: post #746
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes but if the intent was to help or protect the campaign, and Trump's business paid for it (rather than the campaign or Trump personally) it's an illegal campaign donation because it's above the limit.

Seems like a pretty thin theory for such an unprecedented case. (I mean. Imagine if the campaign HAD paid for it!)

I’m all for accountability and rule of law. But I’d hope the grand jury has something a little bit better than just this.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#752

Post by notahacker »

meragrin_ wrote: post #703
notahacker wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 You must have not seen much of the 2016 election crap then. It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much c…

> It was pretty clear that it would not have any impact on his campaign by the time she was paid in October. So much crap was said about him by then, it would have been a small side story.

All election ads and promotional activities are small side stories in the scope of the overall campaign (and his family heard all the other crap said about him too!). Fact remains that the time Trump's lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels was years after the event but weeks before an election, and Cohen has already pleaded guilty to it being a campaign finance violation. In the scope of campaign finance violations it doesn't sound like a particularly massive one and the reasons for not wanting to declare it are obvious and unlikely to be related to any sort of wider conspiracy, but it stretches credulity to imagine that the election wasn't a consideration.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#753

Post by jonlucc »

wincy wrote: post #739
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…

From what I understand, you can run for office even if you’re in prison.

While technically true, and is, in my opinion, one way to avoid jailing political enemies just to take them off the ballot, there's a reason candidates do a lot of rallies while they're campaigning. If a candidate is actually in jail, they'll legally be on the ballot, but they'll face a very steep uphill battle for the practical needs of a campaign.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#754

Post by th17row »

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…

You nailed it. There's nothing on him so they have to grasp at straws. Or, like other commenters mentioned, it's an intentional move by dems to increase his popularity (in the hopes that he'll be easier to beat in 2024)

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#755

Post by norwalkbear »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #711
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…

[flagged]

Keep dreaming, anti-trans and anti-lgbt movements are gaining strength.

Over half of GenZ and alpha think women's rights and LGBT has gone too far.

Generations aren't magic,we have to give them incentives to care.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#756

Post by rqtwteye »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #711
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…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#758

Post by barbacoa »

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…

It's worth mentioning that the former senator John Edwards was prosecuted for a similar hush money case. It ended in a acquittal on some and mistrial on other charges. The issue was that it is not obvious what he was alleged to have done was even a crime. And Trump's case is even weaker than that of John Edwards.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#759

Post by zikduruqe »

wincy wrote: post #739
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…

From what I understand, you can run for office even if you’re in prison.

Correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#760

Post by th17row »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #262
jimbob45 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s rare for individuals in extreme-stress jobs like the SoS position he held to live much past 70. I have to guess that everyone who cared about charging him thought that it would be a waste of time, energy, and money based on his age for the last 30 years.

It's more than that or people wouldn't be charging 90+ year olds who were concentration camp prison guards in their teens and early 20s.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN