Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

nytimes.com

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#911

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…

The reason nobody is reporting on the actual charges (other than that there are ~30 of them) is because Grand Jury indictments are sealed until the suspect has been arraigned.

There is speculation that many of the charges are related to falsifying business records to cover up the payment, which would explain the number of charges involved. If true, then this case has parallels with what happened with Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinski case: it wasn't the affair that was criminal act, it was the coverup after the fact.

Based on one article that quoted an anonymous source from one of Trump's advisors or confidants, said that they are working toward an arraignment on Tuesday. But it's a high profile case with exceptional circumstances--namely the involvement of the Secret Service--so we should probably take that date with a grain of salt.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#913

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…

> 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.

This is what I don't get. This is a guy who has sketchy real estate deals around the world, many of them large enough that he's probably in bed with the Mob in New York City and with God knows what other organizations -- supposedly he's mixed up with the BJP for his Indian developments, and I strongly suspect he's done shady stuff in Ukraine as well. Surely there's something there? There've been years to carry out an investigation, why has none of this been chased to ground?. I feel like The Economist got more dirt on him, around 2017 or so, than I'm seeing here.

By comparison to all that substantive stuff, the current charges have a "Clinton got a blowjob" air about them. I guess the phrase "hush money to a porn star" focus-grouped well, but why should I really care? Does it make the guy look kind of sad and pathetic? Certainly. Does it make him look evil? No.

The Hunter Biden stuff was similar, but the other way around. The Republicans released those photos, acting like they were damning. But they weren't. They just made me feel sorry for Hunter Biden -- and more sorry for Joe Biden, for having to hold shit together for his loser son (doesn't every family have problems?). In a strange way it increased my respect for Joe Biden, because there he was, a guy who'd been through a lot, caring for his family. To me it just made the Republicans look bad -- like, who the fuck are you, to gloat about his son's problems like this?

My sympathy for Trump is nowhere near as high in this case as it was for Biden in that one, but there's a little bit of an overlapping feeling. Like -- congratulations, you discovered that the man is a weakling with bad taste who gives in to really lame temptations. So what? This almost humanizes him. I feel like I'm watching Better Call Saul.

It just feels like playground back and forth over irrelevant sex-taboos (we still have those? I thought there were parades every year). I don't care. It just makes me lose respect for everyone involved, including the prosecution. Makes me feel that our leaders, of whatever stripe, simply are not worthy. There's no dignity in any of it.

The aspect that matters to national politics is possible interference with the electoral process. Did that happen? Then I would sure as hell want to know.

Instead it's kindergarten bickering.

And you know what I really want? Stop talking about where a decrepit wrestling heel put his wrinkly old cock, and instead spend some time on --

-- why the fuck can't people I care about get health insurance?

-- why, when there's a shortage that's going to make an economy car cost me an extra six grand than it's supposed to, are all the automakers closing ranks to reduce output?

-- why do two highly-educated adults need to work their asses off and never see their kids (like they have any), to maintain a lifestyle that within living memory could be held down by one man with a nine-to-five?

-- why, when the ice caps are apparently melting, and money is flowing to things marked "ESG", do I see nothing but lumbering SUVs and F-150s around me, and big stupid McMansions, and new strip malls getting built, for the zombies to drive to?

The phrase "profoundly unserious" echoes in my mind.

We keep saying that we care, but I only see a bunch of chimps screeching.

Would Bernie Sanders spend this much time talking about Trump's peccadilloes? Or would he answer in half a sentence and then say, "but we should really be talking about the working people in this country"? We all know the answer.

Get the paid actor off my television screen and try organizing people to do something useful.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But I think each prong of attack opens up a little more of Trumps weakness and eventually, either through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with. The thing that surprised me yesterday was learning that being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office or the office of President of the United States! So it seems like a pretty impotent "hanging". I had…

>being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office or the office of President

The vast majority of american democracy relies on "norms" and "the public will do the right thing" and "surely they will only elect people who deserve it"

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is perceived to be a weak case, will this help Trump in his election campaign? I understand even his loyal voter base are now sometimes embarrassed by his actions. For example, him storing confidential papers at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency finished. That is different from when he was first elected as President. At that time he couldn't do anything wrong. I am sure the right wing press will spin this as a…

> If this is perceived to be a weak case, will this help Trump in his election campaign? Trump organized a violent coup against his own government to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his political rival. So will his indictment over an unrelated crime help his campaign? No. It's hosed from the start. Because he organized a coup against the government, and everyone saw it on TV.

Unfortunately a lot of people are HAPPY he did those things

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#916

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…

Just a clarification: Cohen plead guilty as part of a plea deal. So the case never went to trial with an adversarial argument of facts between Prosecution and Defense. Therefore, we don't really know how good the case was.

The fact that Cohen is a lawyer would seem to indicate that the case was solid enough that he was concerned he would lose on merit. However, a friend of mine who is managing partner in a legal firm says that "Once a trial goes to a jury, it's approximately a coin flip as to who will win, and the odds only go down from there." That's mainly because if the case is black-and-white, then there will be some settlement/plea deal prior to a trial.

However, Trump has put himself into a corner where he probably cannot accept any plea deal other than one that would drop the criminal charges but keep any misdemeanor charges. I'm not sure that the NY DA, Alvin Bragg, would be willing to do that unless the case starts falling apart. But in the case Trump will push for an aquial rather than a plea deal so that he can use it to rile up his base.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#917
post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>> Large portions of the American public have been traumatized by Trump's behavior. We are seeking justice. > And a large portion of the American public have been traumatized by Biden forcing them to take a medical treatment they didn't want or lose their jobs, in violation of the Nuremberg code. I take the point that what people think is trauma can be subjective. If people come to believe what Fox News is saying abo…

See also: "U.S. court upholds block on Biden's vaccine order for federal workers" https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-court-upholds-block-bidens-...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#918

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…

> "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket." There's a lot of nuance here. Again, we don't know whats in the indictment, but the 500 laws I break today probably are going to be minor or non-felonies. This isn't a matter of "well everyone breaks the law", this is a matter of "some people break major laws and they aren't being held accountable". > For example, something as simple and normal as…

We'll I suppose we are somewhat at an impasse.

I Believe you understand why it is prudent for the judicial branch to refrain from prosecuting key figures from both political parties if the crime committed is just a minor technicality such as not paying a parking ticket or accidentally using non-secure lines of comms.

I think we disagree on whether what Trump is rumoured to be charged on falls under the category of "reasonable to refrain from prosecuting".

I think this is a politically biased DA, going out of his way to use a technicality to charge Trump. In my opinion, this is way outside of what is acceptable. If the rumours are true there is no major nor minor crime committed here, this is at best a technicality and will likely be thrown out.

Besides my opinions on the specific case, I think we also disagree on how much leeway these key political figures and officials should be given before the justice department gets involved.

I personally believe we should give much more affordances. I despise the modern idea of the "civil servant". Its a sort of neutering of what should be very revered roles. Everything from the laughable law salaries which are earned by 20 something kids in silicon valley or wall street. To little things like the secret service being able to veto the president on what he/she wants do etc.

It just seems so unamerican to me. In a very short timeframe, we have lost so much of the reverence and weight given to these roles.

Anyways, I can go on a very long tangent here, so I'll stop myself.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#919

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hmm, knowing this it's unlikely that his lawyers will let him do that. From what I've been hearing this case is really all about optics + the 2024 election. Democrats are banking on the fact that he won't be able to mount an effective primary or general campaign if he's under investigation. The democratic opponent will be able to just say "my opponent is under investigation!" The Republicans are banking on two things…

Trump already lost 2020 before he started lying about election fraud. You think moderates, who decide elections, are going to switch to him?

Desantis and Trump will burn each other for the nomination and if Trump wins that he'll lose. The youth are going to be all over the anger is seething. I can't even look at a Trump supportor without getting angry, first time I've cared about politics.

This will be the death of the republican party and they deserve it

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m not sure he’s going to lie. He seems to have a keen awareness of the perils of lying when there are actual legal consequences.

You think Trump is known for self control?
Post reply on HN