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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#851

Post by d23 »

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?

He's called for his supporters to protest and posted an image of him swinging a baseball bat at the DA's head while calling him a "Soros backed animal". About the indictment, he called the police the gestapo and said "our country is being destroyed, as they tell us to be peaceful!" He is trying to incite violence.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#852

Post by d23 »

auggierose wrote: post #659
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty weak case. How do you know? The charges are sealed. Also there are 34 charges, and 12 people agreed there is substancial evidence to go ahead with the case.

It's about him paying money to a porn star not to talk about their affair? That's not a crime. Now I can see how they can find some stuff in there to make SOMETHING stick, but if the same kind of scrutiny would be applied in general, 50% of the US population would go to jail. Oh wait, a large percentage of the US population actually IS in jail.

I heard they were going to charge him for painting his house? That's not a crime. What's next, charging him for changing a lightbulb?

Oh, that's not what he's being charged with? They don't typically charge high profile cases on a whim for things that aren't a crime? Nevertheless. What's up with the U.S. justice system? No, like what's UP with it!? Haha. What are the basics, and what's an attorney? Why do they wear those suits? If THAT were a crime, we'd ALL be in jail, haha.

Oh wait, what point AM I trying to make?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#853

Post by bayesian_horse »

Quillbert182 wrote: post #788
dfxm12 wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GOP has a ton of power in terms of judges in the courts. Locally and federally all the way up to SCOTUS. These are unelected, lifetime appointments. It will be a very long amount of time before GOP runs out of power. You mention Roe, and that is the most clear example of the GOP's strategy to undermine democracy by legislating via Republican-appointed judges instead of elected law makers.

> You mention Roe, and that is the most clear example of the GOP's strategy to undermine democracy by legislating via Republican-appointed judges instead of elected law makers. To be fair, all Dobbs did was allow elected official to make the choice, and it was Roe that had Judges decide what the law was unilaterally for the whole country.

It's not democracy for elected officials to take certain rights away from a minority. What those rights are has to be discussed on a constitutional level. It's pretty easy to see for the basic right to vote. Harder to see for voting restrictions and bodily autonomy issues like abortion.

"Reproductive choice" is very high up there in terms of bodily autonomy and lack of harm - for women. Men often can't see it that way because they think it doesn't affect them. In any case, it is indecent, even undemocratic and unfree, to allow politicians in those "redneck" states to take away this bodily autonomy. And they do this against the wishes of the majority of their voters even, which makes this even more bizarre.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#854

Post by alistairSH »

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…

Yeah, I was thinking of politicians who faced similar charges.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#855

Post by ethbr0 »

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?

Correct. My understanding is that if Trump had paid Stormy Daniels directly and classified it as a campaign expense, it would have been legal and there would be no case.

As for intent, expect it will turn on the exact language in the charged campaign finance laws. If Trump can find a reason he wasn't required to disclose, there is no felony concealment.

On the whole, a good thing for campaign finance law to have a high profile fight between two well-resourced legal teams. Hopefully it might drive some future reform and better law, as the boundaries are clarified.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#856

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

nullc wrote: post #727
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The indictment is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it is NY State laws in play (likely campaign finance laws), not Federal. If it were Federal it would be prosecuted by Federal attorney's in a Federal court. - A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed li…

> could violate campaign finance laws by using the wrong account My understanding is that there is no limit to the amount of a candidate's own money they are permitted to spend on their campaign. So what legitimate state interest could be advanced by laws that nitpick the exact boundary between what is and isn't campaign funding when it comes to the candidate's own money? Do candidates have to report all their food e…

I think it might be more like a business expense report when you travel. If I'm on a business trip and get a coffee, that's a business expense because I'm traveling for the purposes of work. If I'm working from home and go get a coffee, that's not a business expense. Replace business expense with campaign expense and there are likely rules about what a campaign can pay for and what it can't as well as rules around using personal money for campaign expenses, subverting the necessary disclosure rules.

I read a headline just a bit ago that there were 34 counts in the indictment so I'm guessing what they found spans more than a single transaction.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#857

Post by treis »

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…

Corporations can not directly give money to candidates which includes sending money to a 3rd party at the direction of the candidate. It's a much more serious violation that simply a failure to report. Usually reporting violations are dealt with civilly, though I couldn't confirm that there are no criminal penalties with a brief google search.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#858

Post by pc_edwin »

d23 wrote: post #842
pc_edwin wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I didn't mean to get into the politics of it, I was using the case as an example where Comey went as far as setting a new precedent of "intent" as the standard of prosection in order to avoid the prosecution and impacting the election.

Mishandling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Here's a short summary of chatGPTs take:

> This statute does not require that the person transmitting the information have a specific intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government;

> Additionally, under 18 U.S. Code § 1924, it is a federal crime to knowingly remove classified material from its proper place of custody or to transmit it to an unauthorized person, regardless of whether there is any intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#859

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #804
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The indictment is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it is NY State laws in play (likely campaign finance laws), not Federal. If it were Federal it would be prosecuted by Federal attorney's in a Federal court. - A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed li…

> A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed like a court case understanding laws and evidence presented, including witness interviews, and the result here is that they chose to indict. This means that 12 (or more) citizens decided there was enough evidence that specific laws might have been broken to bring charges against him. There's also a famous saying…

> some legal experts who were definitely not Trump fans argue that it was not a case they would've brought

Legal experts or not, unless they have seen the evidence (incl witness testimony) and charges their speculation is as good as any internet commenter. I read a headline that there are 34 charges in the indictment, could be many unique ones or it could be one of those things like 34 wire fraud charges because there were 34 transactions from 34 accounts or whatever.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#860

Post by listenallyall »

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…

> through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with.

"Show me the man, I will find you a crime"

Post reply on HN