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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#891

Post by leereeves »

jshen wrote: post #472
leereeves wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That VP was not convicted, however. And more importantly, that's not what Trump was indicted for. Indicting him for misusing campaign funds would be straight-forward, if they could prove it. So the fact that they indicted him for something else seems to show that they couldn't prove he misused campaign funds. They actually indicted him for recording a payment to his lawyer as "legal expenses", because it was allegedl…

We don’t know yet what he was indicted for exactly.

And yet the media has been explaining it for weeks. I guess I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they have sources and aren't just making it up.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#892

Post by random_upvoter »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #730
random_upvoter wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm not mistaken Obama's campaign was fined for the same offense -- non-disclosed campaign distributions. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/07/obama-campai...

You are mistaken, these are not the same offense.

Do explain. As far as I understand the problem is that Cohen paid for the hush money, so it was essentially a campaign contribution that was not reported.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#893

Post by commandlinefan »

mcv wrote: post #876
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…

From what I understand, it's a big violation of campaign finance laws, and it's what Michael Cohen already went to prison for. It's certainly not the worst of Trump's crimes, but it's weird that Cohen went to prison so quickly, but it took years before Trump himself was finally indicted. Surely if Cohen was guilty, then so was Trump?! The entire impossibility of prosecuting Trump is weird to me. There's a host of cri…

> There's a host of crimes to pick from

The only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that the evidence of those crimes is even weaker than this (already pretty weak) charge.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#894

Post by mcv »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #686
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…

I'd imagine part of the strategy is to get Trump on the stand. He's going to lie (because he can't help it) and that opens him up to perjury charges. But there are bizarre aspects to this case. One is that Trump associates like Giuliani and Deripaska were raided, but there don't seem to have been any subsequent charges. Another is that there's so much on Trump - from tax dodging, to Jan 6, to links to suspect foreign…

> Another is that there's so much on Trump - from tax dodging, to Jan 6, to links to suspect foreign money - that it seems like a strange case to highlight.

Exactly. It's not that this particular case isn't worth prosecuting, but there's so much more that's far worse, and not much seems to be moving on those other fronts. I don't understand why it took so long and why this is the first one to finally go to trial. Was January 6 not reason to arrest him? What about those classified documents in his basement? Those sound like more urgent cases to prosecute, though admittedly a lot more recent.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#895

Post by paul7986 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #594
tpoacher wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse. As many have pointed out: "If he gets arrested, he's your next president." Wouldn't be the first leader whose arrest led to raging popularity and revolt.

Prominent Republicans (like John Bolton) have claimed that Democrats are intentionally targetting Trump to increase his popularity with his base so that he'll definately become the nominee and then be easy to beat. Whether you believe that or not, its wild that we're in such a position that claims like that could be made.

Wild in politics... nothing is wild to me with politics ..win at all cost and angles. Make things up ..smear your opponent..etc... been playing that game forever.

Nothing for me to pay attention to just vote based on who aligns with my issues and doesn't come off like slimeball or an idiot!

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#896

Post by mrguyorama »

greenhearth wrote: post #874
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…

So what if the case is weak? They should just let it slide then? Whatever country you're from, or whatever ideology you subscribe to, maybe you can appreciate the beauty of putting a strongman POS dictator wannabe on trial for even a parking violation.

Yeah I don't understand why so many people seem to be against this just because it's unlikely it will be raised to a felony or connected to other crimes.

Isn't it fine if this just hits Trump with a small fine or 3 days in jail or something? A fair punishment for a misdemeanor would be fine with me for this case. That's like the whole point of justice, that even the former president should have to follow the fine details.

In my state, our Democrat governor was accused of being a tyrant because of some minor paperwork she didn't do during emergency covid meetings. She still paid the fine because she committed the "crime" (procedural violation?) and that's how it should be. Politicians should not be immune to the little stuff. If they are speeding, they should get a ticket. If they shoplift, they should face a fine. If they forget to report a W2 to the IRS, they should get a pleasant letter telling them their mistake and they owe a few hundred dollars.

I consider that a GOOD thing

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#897

Post by aww_dang »

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…

I've had trouble finding the exact quote, but one of the Obama administration's justifications for not pursuing the abuses of the Bush administration was the precedent it would establish. As I recall, there was some worry that this would establish a norm where every outgoing administration could be targeted.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#898

Post by mcv »

greenhearth wrote: post #874
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…

So what if the case is weak? They should just let it slide then? Whatever country you're from, or whatever ideology you subscribe to, maybe you can appreciate the beauty of putting a strongman POS dictator wannabe on trial for even a parking violation.

My concern isn't that this case is being prosecuted, but that all the stronger cases aren't. Sure, breaking campaign finance laws is bad and should be prosecuted, but he tried to overthrow the government! He had tons of classified documents in his basement and refused to return them. I truly do not understand why he hasn't been arrested for those two. They're more serious crimes, and there's plenty of evidence.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#899

Post by mrguyorama »

sokoloff wrote: post #736
ChatGTP wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it interesting to consider “who would the Democrats most prefer to run against in 2024?” If the economy is weak, I think they’d rather run against Trump (who has a base that’s fiercely loyal but more narrow) rather than a GOP candidate who will pull the majority of Trump’s base but also a wider swath from the “center” population by hammering on the economy. If the economy is strong, historically it doesn’t mat…

Those people in the "center" are so disingenuous. They "aren't republicans" but they will criticize democrats for anything and suddenly be "concerned about the economy" when gas prices raise a few cents. It's pathetic.

Meanwhile the economy and government budget regularly do better under Democrats but noooooo only Democrats have to face the """"economy is doing poorly"""" nonsense.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#900

Post by mcv »

biorach wrote: post #692
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. The Economist, no fan of Trump, made much the same point [1], archived at [2] > Prosecuting Mr Trump for the campaign-finance violation relies on a convoluted argument. In 2016 Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer (who later went to prison himself), paid $130,000 to Ms Daniels out of his own pocket. Mr Trump allegedly reimbursed Mr Cohen with payments disguised a…

What I've been wondering about is: can he be prosecuted for multiple things in different courts? Can he be prosecuted for this, the Georgia election, and the classified documents, at the same time? Or is there a law against that because it's hard to defend yourself against 3 cases simultaneously?
Post reply on HN