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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#781

Post by einpoklum »

pc86 wrote: post #745
einpoklum wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In criminal law, for intent, the prosecution doesn't have to prove no other intent, or what the "main intent" was. In fact, in some legal systems (perhaps the US as well) it is often enough to establish that the accused: 1. Was aware of his relevant actions 2. Was aware the actions are likely to have the relevant effect 3. Acted anyway and - again, in some legal systems - this creates a presumption of intent. The onu…

Luckily in the US an accused isn't required to prove the absence of a given intent just because a third party believes that intent might have been there.

Suppose you point a gun at someone and shoot someone. There are witnesses of you having done so, and of you being alert and sane at the time. But the prosecution cannot find any evidence of your intent to hurt that person. Would you not be convicted for having shot that person?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#782

Post by monetus »

pc_edwin wrote: post #761
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 furt…

(Not who you responded to)

Spiro Agnew was felonious, so there is some precedent. He did plead however. The courts are frequently already seen as weaponized, for legislative purposes at least. The grand jury system isn't seen that way though, and I have trouble seeing how it would be twisted to be so.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#784

Post by aweiland »

lumb63 wrote: post #742
ChicagoDave wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your characterization of who voted for Trump is way off [1]. 42% of female voters, 36% of voters 18-29. Your post also implies that older generations supported Roe, but it is widely accepted that the precedent established in Roe was legislation via the judicial branch. It was an undemocratic law forced upon them, rather than something they chose. Three quarters of states had laws criminalizing abortions at the time t…

Mailing an absentee ballot to a dead person is not a crime. Returning an absentee ballot for a dead person is. And guess who did the latter?

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-poli...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#785

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

pc_edwin wrote: post #761
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 furt…

> "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket."

There's a lot of nuance here. Again, we don't know whats in the indictment, but the 500 laws I break today probably are going to be minor or non-felonies. This isn't a matter of "well everyone breaks the law", this is a matter of "some people break major laws and they aren't being held accountable".

> 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.

And that's why intent is included when considering whether someone has broken the law.

> Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of this, she committed a clear crime here but Comey chose to not prosecute.

And I believe that if there was a case that could have been brought against Clinton there should have been. I don't think that's a get out of jail card for others, I think that was a failure of justice. I wouldn't have had one moment of poor sleep over her going to jail.

> We are witnessing a departure from practices established centuries ago in common law tradition.

That tradition has led to a place where obvious criminality isn't punished. There appears to be no respect for the law from the leadership. If this is a departure, it's a good one.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#786

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #313
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not parent, but I am relatively certain you can't just kill US citizen with a wave of a hand ( not legally that is[1]). Obama did just that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...

The argument that this is legal was from Bush Jr's office: https://thenewamerican.com/cia-has-program-to-assassinate-us... Your Wikipedia link makes it seem like an honest mistake. Which would not be a crime, though could have civil penalties if government immunity wasn't involved.

Unless I am misreading it, the link you provided makes it sound even worse than, by comparison, benign Wiki article:

I am aware of the theory about 'imperial presidency', but I think we can agree that US president does not actually have unlimited power.

Yeah. Funny how the president did not address it himself, but instead we have mere 'leaks' to speculate on.

No. Factually wrong. It would be a crime were government immunity not involved. If you kill a person in US by a sheer stroke of bad fortune, you may still end up being convicted for a crime ( involuntary manslaughter ).

Naturally, this being government makes it fairly complicated, because the actual responsibility is spread across many decision centers, but, as the saying goes, 'the buck stops here' so one would think that if it was a.. mistake, it would be addressed as such and not quietly forgotten and dismissed.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#787

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

Danjoe4 wrote: post #771
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Think about all the deductions you fudged on your taxes

To be clear - absolutely none. This is a way to normalize deviant behavior by assuming everyone does it. Not everyone does. Many do, but that doesn't make it right.

> Impeachment is our recourse for a corrupt president and that ship has sailed.

He's no longer president, he's just a citizen. Keep in mind, if the rumors are true, these are crimes he committed before he became president. Is the argument here that once someone is president they are forever immune to prosecution?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#788

Post by Quillbert182 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #748
ChicagoDave wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

GOP has a ton of power in terms of judges in the courts. Locally and federally all the way up to SCOTUS. These are unelected, lifetime appointments. It will be a very long amount of time before GOP runs out of power. You mention Roe, and that is the most clear example of the GOP's strategy to undermine democracy by legislating via Republican-appointed judges instead of elected law makers.

> You mention Roe, and that is the most clear example of the GOP's strategy to undermine democracy by legislating via Republican-appointed judges instead of elected law makers.

To be fair, all Dobbs did was allow elected official to make the choice, and it was Roe that had Judges decide what the law was unilaterally for the whole country.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#789

Post by pc86 »

einpoklum wrote: post #781
pc86 wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily in the US an accused isn't required to prove the absence of a given intent just because a third party believes that intent might have been there.

Suppose you point a gun at someone and shoot someone. There are witnesses of you having done so, and of you being alert and sane at the time. But the prosecution cannot find any evidence of your intent to hurt that person. Would you not be convicted for having shot that person?

Contrived strawman aside, this is exactly why there are different legal definitions for murder in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degrees, as well as manslaughter. And different punishments for each based.

In this example, it's probably open-and-shut 2nd degree but the prosecution now has to prove that you premeditated this if they want to go for 1st degree (IANAL). They don't get to just say "it was clearly premeditated" and then put the onus of proof on the defendant.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#790

Post by jen20 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #585
pessimizer wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially if he is convicted of paying off a porn star to hush up an extramarital affair while his wife was pregnant. We already know he did it. This is something that has had at least 100K articles written about it. The indictment isn't for that, it's for a campaign finance violation. Paying prostitutes to sign NDAs isn't a crime. edit: So I think a conviction will make absolutely no difference. I also think 25%…

Yes they are. But I also think there must be limits to what can be accepted by the non core base. The more extreme things become, surely - surely - there’s a point where the rational conservative says “wtf” Re: the criminal charges. There have been a lot of article written but they’re easier to dismiss than a court of law finding fact.

> surely - there’s a point where the rational conservative says “wtf”

This surely depends on whether the 'rational conservative' is capable of basic introspection.

What is being proposed by the GP would be decried instantly by even the slightly-right-leaning if it were any other group (especially, say, black people, or left-wingers).

Post reply on HN