Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#841

Post by bayesian_horse » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:32 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #714

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)

> (she was hushed to aid the presidential campaign) There was so much crap spewed about Trump this would not have affected the campaign in any way. If all the other crap didn't damage, why would they believe that would? He wanted to keep his private life private. She wasn't paid off until the month before the election. It was VERY clear by that point the affair would have little affect on the election.

According to which "political experts"? He got hammered with the Access Hollywood tapes. You can easily make a case that he had an incentive to not repeat that experience. The proximity to the election and the distance to the actual event is just to damning.

He also doesn't have a history of hush money payments, but rather openly admitting, even inventing scandals about his love life (he claimed he was dating Madonna ffs). So why all of a sudden would he pay hush money and try to cover up the hush money in an illegal scheme? Nothing to do with the election a few days away? Really?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#842

Post by d23 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:33 PM UTC

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…

> she committed a clear crime here

False.

https://archive.is/FM1US

> “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hi...

> “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” the report said.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#843

Post by dougSF70 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:33 PM UTC

Perhaps this is a concerted, organized legal strategy that Georgia, NYC and the Feds have organized.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#844

Post by d23 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:34 PM UTC

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.

> If he weren't Donald Trump, would he be getting charged for this?

Yes. Michael Cohen went to jail for this already.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#845

Post by d23 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:37 PM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #658

I think this is unfortunate because it cheapens American democracy even further in the eyes of adversaries who want nothing more than to mock us on the world stage. Whatever your view of the balance between the need to enforce laws vs. keeping national politics out of law enforcement: From a foreign policy point of view, it's a catastrophe. There are three classes of countries, as I see it, that indict or jail leader…

> I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but I hope Joe Biden will be wise enough to immediately issue Trump a pardon and bring this to a close. [...] Biden needs to pardon him right away.

Good stuff. You should lead with this next time for the reader's sake.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#846

Post by Anechoic » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:38 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #822

ethbr0 wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

but if Trump paid directly himself, it wouldn't violate campaign finance laws?

That's my (uneducated) understanding, but the speculation is that he didn't pay it himself because then he couldn't deny (to friends/family/fans/donors/voters) that he knew her.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#847

Post by bayesian_horse » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:38 PM UTC

mise_en_place wrote: post #589

padjo wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t stop people like Pence and Lindsey Graham from cynically playing to the crowd by describing as outrageous charges that haven’t been made public yet

How would you like it if you were dragged from your house in the middle of the night for unspecified crimes. That’s what “sealed” charges are. With the way things are going, I’m sure you will find out soon. This is the type of stuff that happens in authoritarian regimes, not liberal democracies. All I can say is, I hope you’re armed when they’re at your doorstep next.

He has a chance to voluntarily surrender, get processed and go home immediately. Much unlike many suspects/defendants, actually. He will get his charges read.

Even if this results in a prison sentence, that prison sentence wouldn't be served in prison, more likely he'll get some home detention, because of the practicalities of secret service protection and what not. Maybe they restrict his TV access and tee times.

So yes, Trump gets treated extremely unfairly in the justice system.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#848

Post by bayesian_horse » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

xdennis wrote: post #566

plandis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.

If the US never prosecutes its war criminals, someone has to.

There are plenty of prosecutions and convictions of US soldiers for war crimes in the US.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#849

Post by pclmulqdq » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:40 PM UTC

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?

Culpability and the exact crime actually depends a LOT on your mental state and what intent you supposedly had. Let's start with some basic cases and get weirder:

* Intent to kill or harm someone - murder (with degree being dependent on how much pre-meditation you had)

* Intent to pull the trigger, but not to kill or hurt anyone - manslaughter

* No intent to pull the trigger (eg accidental discharge - maybe the trigger pull on the gun is very light and you put a little too much pressure on it) - possibly manslaughter on recklessness grounds if you knew there were people around or the person was there, but also maybe a lower crime (or not a crime at all) if you were being careful with the gun and got unlucky about where it was pointing when it discharged

* Not mentally competent to understand that you might be hurting someone or that hurting someone is wrong - not guilty because of insanity

* Intent to kill the person in self-defense and the person is intending to kill or harm you - not guilty of any crime due to self defense (a murder, but not a crime)

* Intent to kill someone else who is attacking you in self-defense, but you missed - also self defense (intent follows the bullet)

There are probably 10+ more other major scenarios to cover here with different outcomes. This is partly why when someone kills someone else with a gun, the prosecution tries to hit them with murder, manslaughter, and reckless handling of a deadly weapon. They don't know which one will stick, but they can be pretty sure that a jury will find one kind of intent.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#850

Post by bayesian_horse » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:42 PM UTC

_pigpen__ wrote: post #728

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…

The bar should be fairly air tight. Cohen has already served time for this crime. Moreover, he was charged with acting in conspiracy with “Individual 1”. While Trump will face a separate trial, with all that entails, in practice there was already a successful trial for at least some of Trump’s crime. In your example, both payments would be legitimate business expenses.

I believe Bragg probably knows what he's doing, but the charge against Cohen isn't a good argument.

Cohen really got a raw deal from the prosecutor and basically got threatened with more charges, and his wife getting charged, unless he pleads guilty within a day or so. That's why the quality of the individual charges in that plea deal can't be taken for granted.