Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

nytimes.com

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#761

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).…

The alternative take here is that this is saying no one is above the law. That ISN'T the sort of thing you see in corrupt/unstable institutions. A lot of Americans seem super comfortable with the idea that their leaders and aristocrats aren't supposed to be subject to the law. This may be one of those times that there's actually enough of a case that judicial branch feels it can take a shot at one of their betters an…

With all due respect, I'm of the opinion that the alternative here is the weaponisation of the judicial branch.

Most commenters on this post has knowingly or unknowingly broken the law multiple times in their lives. As the Buffet saying goes: "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket."

Buffet said this in relation to JP Morgan's "London Whale" scandal. Whats interesting here is he went on further to say: "You can’t be active in a big business without making some mistakes, and sometimes they may be big ones". This is especially true for government.

For example, something as simple and normal as taking some work docs home or discussing work with a spouse could lead to breaking serious federal laws.

Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of this, she committed a clear crime here but Comey chose to not prosecute. Despite this decision, he faced heavy scrutiny for delaying the decision which many believe had an impact on the outcome of the election.

It is important to take note of my earlier point, this is not a debate on whether leaders and "aristocrats" should be subject to the law. We are witnessing a departure from practices established centuries ago in common law tradition.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#762

Just going to drop this here, make of it what you will. "By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Cole and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the ou…

> The truth is you could pin a charge on a large percentage of politicians if you were determined to.

I mean... great, let's do that. If they're all committing crimes, let's start arresting them until they stop. That's how they treat us after all.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#764
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…

> Perhaps if he goes to jail, he can't run for office?

There is no restriction on a candidate for the US presidency vis-a-vis current or former incarceration. Anyone could constitutionally run a presidential campaign or even serve while in jail. This is because the Supreme Court has held that only the Constitution can set qualification requirements. [0]

The sole, debatable exclusion seems to be the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and cabinet (or the president themselves) to shift presidential powers to the vice president when "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." [1]

[0] https://fortune.com/2023/03/30/donald-trump-can-still-run-fo...

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#765

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…

If this is perceived to be a weak case, will this help Trump in his election campaign? I understand even his loyal voter base are now sometimes embarrassed by his actions. For example, him storing confidential papers at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency finished. That is different from when he was first elected as President. At that time he couldn't do anything wrong. I am sure the right wing press will spin this as a…

It's weak case that has unified the party and base around Trump.

Desantis fought with Trump two days ago, is now about him like a dear friend.

If they couldn't get anything on Trump for J6, then they have nothing, and it's all witch hunts here.

Bragg literally campaigned on arresting Trump too.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#766

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…

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)

If a person you had an affair with 10 years ago threatens you that they will tell your spouse or try to damage your reputation unless you pay them 130k, I think that would generally be considered extortion.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the impression that there's no explanation required for how all the forces of the most powerful government in the world and its intelligence agencies, which are the largest, best financed, and since 9/11 least restrained in the world can't prove the liberal claims of a vast array of crimes that a slightly stupid wrestling valet game show host who largely lived off branding agreements with real estate developers…

Yeah it’s hard to look at something like the Rod Blagojevich saga and then look back at Trump and not immediately wonder what the hell is going on here. They very clearly have the capability to coordinate the entire media apparatus, law enforcement, etc to cuff a sitting Governor and quickly send him to a federal pit and down the memory hole for essentially the exact same sort of quid pro quo that was underpinning th…

A state governor doesn't have control or influence over federal law enforcement, nor do they get the cloud of ambiguity created by presidential immunity.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The most interesting aspect to this indictment is that, until now, there’s been a clear reluctance to go all the way on nailing Trump for the sort of extremely common crimes that many of our wonderful politicians/wealthy engage in on a regular basis. It’s why they didn’t stick him on emoluments, nepotism, tax dodging - even “improperly storing classified documents” somehow turned out to be a brush too broad. So now A…

Bragg campaigned on arresting Trump.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#769
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The defense gets to voir dire the jury. There were still millions of votes for Trump in NY and many that didn't vote at all.

I don't think this is the case for grand juries...

Which is why they don't have the final say; the verdict is made by the trial jury after hearing from both sides.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#770

Just going to drop this here, make of it what you will. "By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Cole and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the ou…

> The truth is you could pin a charge on a large percentage of politicians if you were determined to. I mean... great, let's do that. If they're all committing crimes, let's start arresting them until they stop. That's how they treat us after all.

Yes, but first we should arrest trump, we promise we'll arrest pelosi and the other scoundrels later!
Post reply on HN