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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#861

Post by treis »

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…

>Assuming the charges are limited to the Daniels payment, you're correct. It's a weak case.

CNN, at least, is reporting that he's facing 30 charges. If that's the case, it's probably charges related to the Trump Org's shenanigans that the corp was found guilty of. The organization's indictment had a lot of shady stuff and a lot of stuff that looked like flat out fraud. Lots of criminal looking behavior that plausibly can be directly tied to Trump himself.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#862

Post by msrenee »

twic wrote: post #802
ethbr0 wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps if he goes to jail, he can't run for office? There is no restriction on a candidate for the US presidency vis-a-vis current or former incarceration. Anyone could constitutionally run a presidential campaign or even serve while in jail. This is because the Supreme Court has held that only the Constitution can set qualification requirements. [0] The sole, debatable exclusion seems to be the 25th Amendment, wh…

Indeed, Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison in 1920: https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/debs-received-millio...

If he is convicted of a felony and does run for president again, then he won't be able to vote, right?

Maybe it'll be an impetus to create a clearer path for convicted felons who served their time and don't reoffend to regain their voting rights. Probably not, but it would be nice.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#863

Post by dukeofdoom »

joosters wrote: post #628
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…

The difficulty here, as I understand it, is that Trump could have plenty of reasons for paying off someone, not all of which are to do with political campaigning. For instance, he could argue that he paid off SD to avoid damage to his relationship with his wife or family, and that it had nothing to do with his campaigning. (In fact, you could argue that this defence is even stronger because he is Donald Trump. He has…

How exactly do you prove that this wasn't paid to prevent further embarrassment to his wife and to salvage his relationship? He did go around at the time calling Stormy Daniels "Horse Face". Which does directly relate to his wife being a former model, being more beautiful, and can be seen as an attempt to reassure her. Intent is hard to prove.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#864

Post by ncallaway »

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.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the system.

Sealed indictments are not new. All indictments are sealed after the Grand Jury returns a True Bill. Indictments must be unsealed before an arrest warrant is issued.

While the indictments haven’t yet been unsealed, Trump also hasn’t been arrested, nor has an arrest warrant been issued.

Finally, an arraignment (the first Court appearance where you are formally notified of the charges) will never happen with a sealed indictment.

The 6A protects you from being tried on secret charges.

However, when being arrested the police *are not* required to notify you for the reason for your arrest.

So, nothing novel is happening in this instance related to the sealed indictment. The thing that’s unusual here is the case is so high profile we know about it after the Grand Jury returned an indictment but before it was unsealed.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#865

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

stuckinhell wrote: post #332
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely askin…

Because Trump has nearly religious following that scares many many people on the left and right. They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis. I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.

> They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc

ANYTHING, eh? Please tell me, what did they do? Trump won an election (thanks to the mechanics of the Electoral College), he served as president, he passed laws (some of which the courts overturned, as happens with most presidents), he handed out pardons (some wise, some not), and then he lost an election.

What is this "ANYTHING" that has been done to stop him?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#866

Post by seanw444 »

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.

I find it very amusing that the "A Threat to our Democracy™" card gets pulled out, even when the context is repealing unilateral decisions and bringing the choice to a more local level. People should just be honest and start saying "A threat to ideas I like." At least then I wouldn't have to eyeroll so hard.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#867

Post by lumb63 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #812
lumb63 wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A trivial example is like I mentioned above. In Massachusetts, since there are no voter ID laws, I can walk into my local voting precinct and cast a vote on behalf of anyone whose address and name I know. I could do that as many times as I wanted to, for as many people as I know. I could vote a dozen times as a dozen people with ease. Someone who isn't a registered voter could do the same.

Instances like above probably don't have a direct impact on the outcome of elections (then again, neither does anyone who voted for the losing candidate, no matter how plentiful), but they undermine trust and faith in the democratic process, lower voter efficacy, reduce turnout, etc.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#868

Post by adamrezich »

ModernMech wrote: post #774
calvinmorrison wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but first we should arrest trump, we promise we'll arrest pelosi and the other scoundrels later!

Gotta start somewhere... the guy who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in this very crime is as good as any.

if we "gotta start somewhere", why are we starting with someone who is an outsider to the bipartisan political in-group? assume this prosecution is successful—are we really to believe that then, thereafter, members of the bipartisan political in-group will somehow receive equal scrutiny? upon what basis should we assume this eventual justice will occur?

it should be clear to any sufficiently neutral observer that this is nothing more than making an example out of a problematic political outsider for daring to run for President again. this is not the start of some great wave of justice on behalf of the people, against the entrenched bipartisan political in-group class.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#869

Post by arrrg »

brutus1213 wrote: post #677
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…

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…

Criminal proceedings for ex heads of state or government aren’t at all uncommon in perfectly functioning democracies. It seems to me that the US is more of an outlier in this regard, so this seems to me a positive sign of the US moving in the right direction.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#870

Post by vlovich123 »

msrenee wrote: post #862
twic wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison in 1920: https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/debs-received-millio...

If he is convicted of a felony and does run for president again, then he won't be able to vote, right? Maybe it'll be an impetus to create a clearer path for convicted felons who served their time and don't reoffend to regain their voting rights. Probably not, but it would be nice.

Convicted felons should 100% be allowed to vote though. I never quite understood the fear of letting them vote. Indeed keeping them engaged in society instead of ostracizing them feels like it helps prevent them from reoffending.
Post reply on HN