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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#821

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

rqtwteye wrote: post #756
ChicagoDave wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Although I broadly agree with this, I think you're missing the point that statistical characteristics of particular demographics can be very important.

For example, let's say that in fact roughly 30% of women are support a particular candidate, and that this number will not vary by much more than 5% in either direction. Given that women are more or less 50% of the population, that means that this candidate will need to make up a fairly significant vote deficit by over-appealing to some male demographic.

So yes, not all women or Latinos or African-Americans vote the same way, but if, statistically, enough of them do, then you can make some broad observations about candidate strategy that are likely consequential (and true).

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#822

Post by Chris2048 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #777
makomk wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 believ…

> did Trump funnel the payment through Michael Cohen with the intent to conceal it from campaign finance disclosure transparency

but if Trump paid directly himself, it wouldn't violate campaign finance laws? Because there is no campaign finance limit on Trump himself.

That said, they still have to prove "Ergo, it's a campaign expense" - any individual is motivated to protect their reputation aside from campaigns.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#823

Post by bayesian_horse »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #75
walrus01 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, adjacent to presidents, Henry Kissinger remains both alive and not charged in any international criminal courts. I think he's literally 99 years old now.

Doesn't the US credibly threaten to invade the Hague should any international court there decide to pursue charges against an American citizen? Best you could hope for is domestic charges or for Kissinger to make a visit to Viet Nam and get arrested there.

Bullshit. The Netherlands are a NATO member.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#824

Post by CyberDildonics »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #766
wodenokoto wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First, extortion would typically be with a threat of violence or destruction, so you are thinking of blackmail.

Second, criminal blackmail excludes legal processes.

Third, she didn't threaten trump, she tried to sell her story after he lied to her about being a contestant on the apprentice.

https://www.scrofanolaw.com/federal-blackmail-and-extortion/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/19/nyregion/trump-stormy-dan...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#825

Post by SideQuark »

poulsbohemian wrote: post #167

I know it is campaign finance fraud that is the actual charge, but that fact that of all the possible things they could have charged him with, it's something tied to a sexual act feels so both disappointing and so American. It's likely they can actually get a conviction, so I guess there's that. You can already assume right-wing media will spin this into "Really? All you could get him for was a BJ?" Feels a bit like…

There's quite a few active other legal cases forming. This is the first case with an indictment, which is not too surprising given the age of the activity compared to most of the other state and federal cases.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#826

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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…

> There are stories all over the country about absentee ballots being ...

"There are stories", up there with "People are saying".

When you've got some "stories" that will (a) stand up before a judge (b) are about actually illegality (c) would make a difference in the outcome of an election, I'd really like to hear them.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#827

Post by larrik »

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…

> r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims

I mean, Saddam was the one making these claims the loudest (to look strong).

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#828

Post by d23 »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #85

Is it weird that I don't care? When he was in office he drove me insane. Now I really couldn't be bothered. I think I'm desensitized to... politics, or justice, or something.

Unfortunately the playbook of these types is to "flood the zone" with so much stuff that you get desensitized / give up on trying to figure out what's true and what matters.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#829

Post by Chris2048 »

LeFantome wrote: post #814
alistairSH wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Leavi…

It's not clear to me that this is the "exact same crime". Also, is it significant that Cohen plead guilty? I'm not sure Trump will.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#830

Post by bayesian_horse »

AustinDev wrote: post #421
sanderjd wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory as I understand it is that the payment was a large unreported contribution to his presidential campaign. It's not legal to do that, and the prosecutors believe they can demonstrate that's what happened.

Campaign finance violates are a dime a dozen. I don't think any serious candidate didn't have values similar or greater than what's discussed in this case. None of them got indicted criminally they all just paid fines. `The commission documents said Perkins Coie — where a partner at the time, Marc Elias, was representing the Clinton campaign — paid Fusion GPS slightly more than $1 million in 2016, and the law firm wa…

Violations like that are charged all the time. This particular offense was already charged against Trump's lawyer, so it makes sense to charge Trump who directed Trump to do it.

It wasn't just a campaign finance violation. It also was a major financial misstatement, even fraud telling the election bureau, the IRS and state officials this was legal expenses, which it clearly wasn't. There's no way no how one can make the claim "not a big enough deal to charge". Things like that and even more minor get charged all day long. It's just that there is a very long history of Trump and his goons interfering with this charge getting brought and making a much bigger deal about it.

Post reply on HN