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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#811

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #803
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…

As I understand it, the amount that you can spend on your own campaign is unlimited (thanks to the first amendment), but the amount that other people can contribute is strictly capped due to campaign finance laws. Michael Bloomberg took advantage of this when he did his "primary blitz" in 2020. If this was actually Trump paying his own hush money via his lawyer, then it makes Michael Cohen a liar (when he said that h…

> If this was actually Trump paying his own hush money via his lawyer

The allegation is that Trump reimbursed Cohen for what had (provably) been paid to Daniels. So, as usual, in the real world things get a bit more complicated. Is that still "paying his own hush money" ? Does using an intermediate make it not so? Does using an intermediate who first uses their own funds and you later reimburse them make it not so?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#812

Post by Eisenstein »

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…

> The right does it by voter suppression and strict poll laws, and the left does it by making it easier for those who are not eligible to vote to do so.

Can you expound on how it is easier for people not eligible to vote to do so?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#813

Post by _fat_santa »

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…

Hmm, knowing this it's unlikely that his lawyers will let him do that. From what I've been hearing this case is really all about optics + the 2024 election.

Democrats are banking on the fact that he won't be able to mount an effective primary or general campaign if he's under investigation. The democratic opponent will be able to just say "my opponent is under investigation!"

The Republicans are banking on two things: This case is flimsy and will fall apart, then the line will be "look at how the dems are doing political prosecutions". The other thing they are banking on (and polls have indicated this), that if Trump were prosecuted, his base would vote for him overwhelmingly and effective give him the nomination.

For the democrats there's also the "5D Chess" aspect where they want trump to win the nomination because biden already beat him once (this is a dangerous bet for dems though).

From my perspective reading the news I think the Republicans have the 2024 election in the bag. It's going to either be Desantis or Trump, the democrats just don't have the same kind of figure on their side. The democrats are going to be banking on running an effective "negative" campaign like they did in 2020 (no one voted for Biden because they liked the guy, they voted against Trump).

I know this is a pipe dream but I'm hoping that Vivek Ramaswamy gets elected. He seems the lest slimey and most pragmatic among the pack. TBH I need to go live on an island because I'm just so done with the sesspool that is American Politics.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#814

Post by LeFantome »

alistairSH wrote: post #750
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…

This seems like a weak case to me. Assuming the charges are limited to the Daniels payment, you're correct. It's a weak case. They have to prove the misdemeanor accounting charge, then to elevate to a felony, the DA must prove that crime was used to cover-up some other more serious crime (likely campaign finance related). The last time a similar case was brought, it was against John Edwards (who took money to pay for…

I just want to point out that the last time a similar case was brought was against Cohen for this exact same crime. Cohen was convicted and served time in federal prison. In his trial, Cohen testified that he broke the law at the direction of somebody only referred to in the public disclosures as “Individual 1”. The only plausible person this can be is Donald Trump.

So, regardless of what you think of the case. Leaving out that somebody was already successfully convicted of this exact crime is a significant omission.

We do not know the charges yet of course. The most significant are likely to be campaign finance related with details of falsified records and hush money payments providing supporting evidence of those crimes as much as they are crimes themselves.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#815

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

> so paying her to stay quiet is considered a campaign expense

isn't this a bit of a stretch? lots of things that could "make trump look bad" (TM) might have a political consequence, but does that make them all defacto campaign related? Aren't there plenty other (personal) reasons he would pay her off unrelated to the campaign (he's done/said things unrepentantly that could equally impact his campaign, so it's not clear Trump is even motivated to pay her off for this reason).

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#816

Post by bayesian_horse »

fsckboy wrote: post #169
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.

> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I think that's overstated. First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king". Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting presiden…

Nope. There is a constitutional argument that a sitting president should not get indicted. But for one thing that's not settled law in any form, nor is it based in "sovereign" powers, nor is it even an immunity. The constitution and the oath of office requires him/her to faithfully execute the laws. That means he can't be immune, he can't be above the law... And yes, the US constitution is beyond messed up. It just barely works well enough not to risk switching it up.

In Germany for example we have sort of an "updated" version, with lessons learned. But one thing I actually want changed is that members of parliament have actual real immunity. Not in the practical sense - immunity for individual members has historically always been waived by parliament at the slightest whiff of an investigation. But the example of Trump teaches us that it is a fallacy to trust in the decency of politicians and unwritten rules.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#817

Post by SideQuark »

stuckinhell wrote: post #369
talkingtab wrote: post #185

We are a people who have decided to be governed by laws rather than kings, or religions or dictators or putins. The laws applies to all the people equally. Everyone is entitled to a jury. A jury of peers decides. That is who we are. That is what a democracy is.

Half the country thought Hillary Clinton should be arrested for emails. Not a good metric.

Arrests are not made on popular votes. The FBI was the legal authority to investigate and decide on charges, and they clearly said nothing was near a legal threshold to charge.

Hillary complied with them, didn't fight in the courts for years, didn't obstruct. The only places making such nonsense noise was certain media outlets.

The only accurate info the public has is from the FBI statements (and a few later FOIA releases). Rad those to get a correct idea of what is known.

So such polls are at best outrage fodder.

As the OP said, we have laws. Not mob lynchings.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#818

Post by Timon3 »

nemo44x wrote: post #689
ahiknsr wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now a red line has been crossed Now we crossed a red line? I thought Trump crossed it when he tried to overthrow the government?

Did he though? Does anyone really believe that other than the most breathless opponents and news stations? I never voted for the guy but it’s clear that the “insurrection” was hardly that and more of a protest that turned into a lawless riot. Of which we’d seen politicians and media celebrate a lot of over the previous year. Isn’t a riot the language of the unheard, after all?

Aren't you ignoring all the planning that was happening? Trump specifically wanted a riot during the certification to disrupt the process. This would (according to fringe legal theories) allow Pence to choose "alternative" state delegates, which would have given Trump the win.

We know that Trump was following this legal strategy. Why is it important whether Jan6 was an insurrection or a riot?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#819

Post by bayesian_horse »

stuckinhell wrote: post #326
dmix wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour bef…

Trump is a fundamentally different player than Bush or Nixon. They were establishment in times the establishment wasn't nearly as hated as it is now. This just plays to Trump's strength as the ultimate rebel. In terms of game theory, this is a very different game than Nixon or Bush. Trump annihilated the Bush Legacy, and is hated by both sides of the establishment.

Trump is part of "the establishment" himself. And that he can bullshit people like you into believing otherwise is part of his superpower as a lifelong pathologic liar.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#820

Post by pclmulqdq »

ethbr0 wrote: post #780
treis wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Those sound like very tenuous grounds. Most peoples' lawyers bill them for ancillary expenses, from printing/copying to first-class flights and other purchases in the line of work. It's not inconceivable that hush money would be in that category. Anything on a legal bill tends to go on most peoples' books as a "legal expense." In New York, there's no requirement to give clients itemized legal bills, although the client can request them. High-end lawyers tend to avoid itemizing their bills unless you ask (implying some sort of fee dispute).

At the same time, is this really the kind of thing you want a prosecutor to go after a former president and likely future presidential candidate from the opposing party for?

Post reply on HN