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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#771

Post by Danjoe4 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #718
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).…

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…

Political leaders need a different legal standard because there are ulterior motives to subject them to immense scrutiny. If he weren't Donald Trump, would he be getting charged for this? Think about all the deductions you fudged on your taxes; those transgressions went unnoticed because you are a "normal person". Impeachment is our recourse for a corrupt president and that ship has sailed.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#772

Post by calvinmorrison »

havblue wrote: post #305
photochemsyn wrote: post #67

I think it sets a good precedent. If indicting past presidents (and vice presidents) for crimes committed while in office (or while running for office), well, the courts are going to be busy on this front for years to come. Bush and Cheney are certainly candidates, r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims. The list could be expanded to include charges related to the unConstitutional domestic spying progra…

Certainly, Bush and Cheney invaded a country under false pretenses after lying to the public. They also set up a surveillance state with the help of major corporations. And, maybe not so much of a crime, they set us on the path of thinking that deficits don't matter in this country: so for their increases in spending they steadfastly lowered taxes. And the bank bailouts.... The unfortunate matter though is the damage…

George Bush killed 1 million Iraqi's and we're here arguing about hush money for hookers. Gotta love it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#774

Post by ModernMech »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #770
ModernMech wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

Gotta start somewhere... the guy who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in this very crime is as good as any.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#775

Post by collegeburner »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #718
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).…

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…

meh. we rightly realized there is more danger from leaving the ability to prosecute political leaders then from letting them get away with it. we're also entirely comfortable with letting 9 in 10 get away to preserve a high standard of doubt (blackstone's ratio). because the alternative is weaponizing the justice system, which undermines trust in it even more surely than letting a politician get away with a parking ticket or paperwork discrepancy.

we've already killed impeachment as having high legitimacy, clinton case was pretty politically motivated as were trump's. let's not have the whole ass criminal justice system follow pls and ty.

btw i am not saying he's innocent, this is just a dumb case.

this whole shitshow has a very third world look to it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#776

Post by throwaway6734 »

bruceb wrote: post #198
throwaway6734 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The country doesn't need this. Trump was fading away. Agree with the former, disagree with the latter. he's still the frontrunner to win the gop primary

in 2015/6 The GOP field didnt know what do with Trump and for the most part only half attacked him thinking he was a side show who would burn out. He also had no political baggage and no prominent court cases Now he as alienated a lots of people, he lost an election, facing multiple court cases. He will have at least one or two R candidates who will directly attack him. He will have to fight 'wars' on multiple fronts…

Why are you saying "would have won"? The primary has not happened yet and he's still the favorite

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#777

Post by ethbr0 »

makomk wrote: post #644
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'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…

As far as I can tell, here's how the justification that it's a crime worth charging goes:

1. Would Stormy Daniels announcing weeks before the election that she and Donald Trump had an affair have impacted the election? Yes.

2. Was the (perfectly legal) money paid to Stormy Daniels to prevent that thus intending to influence the election? Yes. Ergo, it's a campaign expense.

And here's where it turns into what I believe they'll be charging.

3. Knowing the above, did Trump funnel the payment through Michael Cohen with the intent to conceal it from campaign finance disclosure transparency? If so, that's conspiracy and a felony through falsifying business records to conceal another crime.

If you break the law inadvertently, that's generally a lesser crime. If you specifically know you're breaking the law and still do it, that's usually a higher charge. And if you take additional actions to conceal the fact that you broke the law, that's an even higher charge.

And because these are financial crimes, it's easier to find records of the intermediate payments.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#778

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #229
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #95

I am going to post a mildly unpopular opinion on what it actually means. In a word: nothing. Regardless of how you see Trump, he is, and has been basically since he became President, the presumptive nominee of the Republican party with remaining candidates hoping to take him down. With all that in mind, what does this indictment actually mean in terms of possible penalty? In a word: nothing. Felon can still run for P…

> Now.. note that they are getting him on some relatively small stuff. All that stuff about Russia, nuclear secrets raid, running bs charity, being peed on.. none of that panned out in a way that touched Trump. And that is the last card to play. There are like 3 other criminal investigations currently ongoing into him, plus a civil one in New York. https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigations-civil-c...

It is possible I did not make my point clear. I will attempt to rephrase it more explicitly.

Trump has been under investigation the moment he won. No one serious ( based on some accounts that included DJT ) thought he would actually win.

I will make it even more explicit. CNN promised me I will real life equivalent of House of Cards intrigue with charges that would make political world spin with disbelief. What we seem to have gotten is a receipt for a parking ticket so far..

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#779

Post by cyberge99 »

th17row wrote: post #740
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have it the other way around. There isn't much on Trump, and that's precisely wht they have to cling to weak technical stuff like this.

A famous mob boss was brought down by the tax evasion.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#780

Post by ethbr0 »

treis wrote: post #690
pdpi wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't about campaign contribution limits, it's about declaring campaign expenses.

As far as I've read, it was money his campaign legally had, spent on something he could legally spend it on... that he attempted to conceal the payment for, so it wouldn't show up in campaign finance reports.

Ironically, if he'd just paid it directly from campaign funds and given it an obfuscated name ("PR Services"), he'd be in much less legal trouble now.

Post reply on HN