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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#831

Post by d23 »

thathndude wrote: post #165
edgyquant wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No i think this is a reasonable response. I’ve completely checked out of politics as well after 4 years of trump and two years of a continued culture war.

Same here. Sad thing is that I used to enjoy following politics. Now, I just steer clear entirely. It’s all a farce, both sides. The media needs to stop making Trump relevant so that we all can move on.

They need to start ignoring the leading GOP candidate who actively conspired to overthrow the election and just received a criminal indictment -- a first ever in this nation's history?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#832

Post by pclmulqdq »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #811
pclmulqdq wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah, that's 100% him paying his own hush money. Your lawyer is often an extension of you in that respect - that's why a "power of attorney" document is called that. As long as it flows through agents with that kind of close arrangement, the path the money takes doesn't matter - it's coming straight from the client. For example, my patent lawyer pays for my fees at the PTAB and then puts them on my monthly bill, but puts my name (or my corporation's) down on the form as the person who paid the fee.

Another commenter suggested that the real crime was that the expense was named incorrectly on the campaign's books, which makes more sense to me but also seems kind of tenuous.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#833

Post by bayesian_horse »

protocolture wrote: post #641
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…

Yes it seems weak. However: 1 iirc Grand Jury's are the ones that get to do everything behind closed doors. So we wouldnt know if they had a smoking gun until after trial possibly. 2 The US has a history of pursuing people it doesn't like through financial crimes. Rico etc. I think its easy to see this in the lens of "oh its another attack on trump that will go away again" and if you experience your entire life throu…

You can't know all the evidence. And the evidence you could know, but probably don't, isn't "weak".

Bragg wouldn't have brought this case if he wasn't sure he can get a conviction. And that's actually unfair treatment: With any other defendant he may take bigger chances, be less hesitant, less careful. And the case wouldn't have been derailed that long. Do you even know the whole history how this got deferred during the Trump presidency and even after?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#834

Post by d23 »

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).…

Like nearly every comment on this topic, this is basically useless because we don't know the details of the indictment, other than that there are 34 counts -- far more than anyone who was making similar points to the ones you're making now predicted.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#835

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

dev_daftly wrote: post #791
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...

Have you looked into why the FEC did not fine Trump?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#836

Post by monetus »

richrichardsson wrote: post #683
janalsncm wrote: post #499

Sounds like we will know the specific charges on Tuesday when Trump turns himself in.

I thought I read something that said he stated he won't go quietly or was it just hearsay? I'm curious (as an outsider) about what are the chances his arrest might cause unrest?

Not much coordinated unrest, not immediately at least. His lawyers said he will voluntarily submit for processing, so that won't be the catalyst. January 6th, 2021 had been advertised as the day for many months, by a more cohesive apparatus. Multiple apparati, really. The 6th fractured that, so that even his most ardent supporters are more paranoid about being baited into unrest.

If/when the Georgian DA and federal special prosecutor move towards indictments, things may get dicier.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#837

Post by mcphage »

ChatGTP wrote: post #685
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…

No at all a Trump fan but another one of these things that could easily backfire and make him look like a hero. It wreaks of some type of attempt to politically assassinate him before the next election. Like I said, not a fan, just kind of seems suspicious.

> another one of these things that could easily backfire and make him look like a hero

That's Trump's real accomplishment—complain so loudly that the idea of being held accountable for your crimes makes you look like a hero.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#839

Post by freejazz »

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.

His attorney already went to jail over this and if he wasn't president, he'd have been charged years ago.

Post reply on HN