Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is the type of partisan hackery I would expect in the comment section of an MSNBC article or on r/politics, but not here.
Why do you believe hackernews is special?
Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
901–910 of 1001 posts
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#902Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A more reasonable conclusion is that there's incredible resistance to prosecuting former presidents. He's the first, and he's not the first president who has committed a crime.
Are (ex-)presidents above the law?
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#903I know it is campaign finance fraud that is the actual charge, but that fact that of all the possible things they could have charged him with, it's something tied to a sexual act feels so both disappointing and so American. It's likely they can actually get a conviction, so I guess there's that. You can already assume right-wing media will spin this into "Really? All you could get him for was a BJ?" Feels a bit like…
If I squint my eyes it looks like the sex stuff is being dragged into the sunlight to get a big part of his base (the loud Christian one that outwardly claims they're aghast at infidelity) to reconsider their allegiances.
Of all the conversations I’ve heard in the last 24 hours, this is one of the more unique takes - great point, thanks for raising it
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#904Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think plenty of the center are happy to criticize both parties when they do stupid things (as is healthy and appropriate, IMO).
Fervent supporters of a particular side might notice a lot more when their party is criticized.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#905I 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…
If this is the case, it seems to be a _relatively_ technical breach of the rules. Maybe intent would get to the heart of the matter. I'm no expert, but it's surprising to me that they would indict a previous president over this with all of the ramifications.
Why should a president be above the law?
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#906Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Yes, he can be prosecuted for all 3 simultaneously.
They are different cases, in different jurisdictions which will be handled by different prosecutors and different court systems.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#907Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ther…
Yep, I totally agree. These commenters weren't commenting so much on the specifics of the case, but in generalities of prosecuting these types of crimes (i.e. where the underlying act, paying hush money, is not a crime, but the record keeping/campaign finance violations are).
But yes, 100%, folks should calm down until the contents of the indictment are made public.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#908Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand, you can run for office even if you’re in prison.
While technically true, and is, in my opinion, one way to avoid jailing political enemies just to take them off the ballot, there's a reason candidates do a lot of rallies while they're campaigning. If a candidate is actually in jail, they'll legally be on the ballot, but they'll face a very steep uphill battle for the practical needs of a campaign.
When you say “avoid jailing political enemies just to take them off the ballot”, do actually mean “avoid prosecuting criminals just to avoid accusations that you are politically motivated”?
In my view, the only reason to jail anybody is because they violated the law. If somebody that violated the law is subsequently jailed, it feels pretty dishonest to say that it was done “just to take them off the ballot”. Not only that, it is inaccurate. Jailing somebody does not take them off the ballot. However, not prosecuting them DOES put them above the law.
Perhaps we have different ideas about the real problems described above.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#909Earlier quoted context omitted.
Campaign finance violates are a dime a dozen. I don't think any serious candidate didn't have values similar or greater than what's discussed in this case. None of them got indicted criminally they all just paid fines. `The commission documents said Perkins Coie — where a partner at the time, Marc Elias, was representing the Clinton campaign — paid Fusion GPS slightly more than $1 million in 2016, and the law firm wa…
Yeah but they weren't being persecuted for obviously political reasons. Usually the ruling class avoids eating their own because they know then that the guillotine can come for them. But in this case, Trump is too much of a danger to the war-machine establishment. Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier and improperly reported it and was fined for it. They didn't try to press criminal charges against her for that or for…
Trump is too much of a danger to the war-machine establishment.
Trump is the war-machine establishment, bro. Recall he wanted (and according to some stories yesterday, still wants) to invade Mexico.
Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump
#910Earlier 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…
> for a former president and polarizing figure, you would think the bar on prosecution would be air tight. This i the crux I think - It's clearly a crime, but should he be held accountable or not due to notoriety? personally, I think public figures (especially politicians) should be held to a higher standard than mere-mortals; but many seem to believe the opposite. You don't want your arrested/prosecuted? Don't elect…
> I think public figures (especially politicians) should be held to a higher standard than mere-mortals; but many seem to believe the opposite.
I think people should be seen as equals before the law. Having one set of standards[law] for one group and a different set for another group is antithetical to rule of law which is purportedly a common American value FWIW.