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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#791

Post by dev_daftly »

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…

This is the same he law he supposedly broke.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-d...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#792

Post by abustamam »

biorach wrote: post #692
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…

> Overall this seems like a weak case to me. The Economist, no fan of Trump, made much the same point [1], archived at [2] > Prosecuting Mr Trump for the campaign-finance violation relies on a convoluted argument. In 2016 Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer (who later went to prison himself), paid $130,000 to Ms Daniels out of his own pocket. Mr Trump allegedly reimbursed Mr Cohen with payments disguised a…

The second archived link seems to still be pay walled. Here's a mirror just in case

https://archive.is/0rJIh

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#793

Post by noelsusman »

jasoneckert wrote: post #101
bsuvc wrote: post #84

Hacker News is better without unrelated political news.

My knowledge of political events is sparse because I haven't dedicated the time it takes to acquire the prerequisite knowledge. However, I'd be interested in learning more from those here who do have that knowledge and are willing to share perspective on these sort of events. In general, I think it's valuable to be curious about things you're not necessarily interested in.

This is simply not a good forum for that, precisely because it's populated by people whose knowledge of political events is sparse.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#794

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

collegeburner wrote: post #775
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…

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 t…

> we're also entirely comfortable with letting 9 in 10 get away to preserve a high standard of doubt (blackstone's ratio).

All this tells me is that this is could be the 1 in 10. We don't know yet.

> which undermines trust in it even more surely than letting a politician get away with a parking ticket or paperwork discrepancy.

Are you certain that's what's occurring here? The implication at the moment is there's a felonies involved. Why are we assuming that Trump is being accused to committing no crimes larger than a parking ticket?

It seems to me that there's an general assumption (not saying it's your assumption) that all politicians are lairs and corrupt and criminals and that's the norm. I think that's an incredibly sad state of affairs and it needs to change. If the justice department wants to start taking shots at politicians who have committed felonies with ironclad cases (we don't know if that's the case here), I say fire away. I don't care what team they represent.

Everyone is currently diminishing the coming unsealing with the idea that somehow it's going to be that Trump jaywalked twice. We don't know that's the case and it would be ridiculous for NY to be taking swings at him for that. If that proves to be the case I'll be vocally against it, but for now I'm assuming that those pressing charges are halfway competent.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#795

Post by ethbr0 »

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.

They're required to prove absence of a given intent in the sense of "to the jury's satisfaction."

If the prosecution says "Here are all the things that indicate intent" and the defense says "I'm not going to respond to any of those, because none of them prove intent" then that's rolling some pretty loaded dice with a jury.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#796

Post by dev_daftly »

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…

The strategy is the democrats have been fundraising on this idea for years and the donors are getting upset

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#797

Post by mbesto »

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…

> This seems like a weak case to me.

This is why we can't have nice things. None of the charges have been disclosed so why even opine on this yet? It's all speculation at this point.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#798

Post by codeddesign »

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…

Hillary Clinton: Charged with $113,000 for breaking campaign finance law.

Obama: Charged with $375,000 for breaking campaign finance law.

Regardless of how you vote, this is a political stunt and witch hunt. Next Biden will be indicted when he leaves office, then the next opponent, and so on…

This is an extremely dangerous precedence that will do nothing but fuel both sides.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#799

Post by cragfar »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #721
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.

Cohen paid her, and then was reimbursed by a Trump Org.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#800

Post by abigail95 »

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?

That depends on whether the fact you shot someone is a disputed fact in the case.

you can't have direct evidence of someones alertness or state of mind, only circumstantial.

the direct evidence from witness testimony is only needed if the shooting is disputed.

assuming the shooting is proven, with no evidence of intent, you can't have murder 1, and likely can't have murder 2 either and are probably stuck with involuntary manslaughter.

obviously it depends on the state.

however even manslaughter requires some requisite knowledge and intention of what you are doing - but proving something like insanity or incapacity is usually on the defense to prove.

Post reply on HN