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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#921

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

ModernMech wrote: post #887
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If, somehow, Bush and Cheney are even considered for an investigation, I will gladly support Bragg's effort. That said, can you give me a rough estimate of a chance of that happening in the next decade?

On what grounds would the DA of Manhattan have for prosecuting Bush and Cheney?

edit: I missed the DA of Manhattan part so the comment below no longer applies, but I decided to keep it unaltered since we seem to be forgetting history rather quick.

Is it a real question?

On the off chance it is a real question, I am going to open with Iraq war, associated war crimes[1] and go from there[2] to people who wrote about it rather extensively and have some knowledge of the subject[3].

I am starting to think that there is wisdom in just waiting. Clearly, you can do anything if you let just enough time pass.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#By_Coalition_forces_a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=oembed&ena... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#922

Post by themitigating »

codeddesign wrote: post #798
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…

Hillary Clinton: Charged with $113,000 for breaking campaign finance law. Obama: Charged with $375,000 for breaking campaign finance law. Regardless of how you vote, this is a political stunt and witch hunt. Next Biden will be indicted when he leaves office, then the next opponent, and so on… This is an extremely dangerous precedence that will do nothing but fuel both sides.

Showing that democrats were also pursued doesn't help your case.

I hope it fuels both sides.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#923

Post by Tangurena2 »

makomk wrote: post #644
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…

I'm pretty sure there is no cap on how much Trump was allowed to spend on his own campaign; that's why US politics is filled with so many rich people spending so much on their campaigns for office (sometimes for very little effect, as happened with Bloomberg). What's capped is how much any single other individual can contribute. Also, it's probably not all that clear that the payment should count as campaigning; if I…

I ran for elected office in Colorado. I refused to take donations because I didn't want to go through the paperwork and regulatory hassle of taking donations. However, every penny I spent on my campaign still had to be reported to the state. Funding the campaign by yourself still needs to fill out paperwork only in months you actually spend money instead of every month (with legal restrictions on what you are allowed/required to do with any funds left over after the election).

Bloomberg ran because if Sanders' tax plans would have cost Bloomberg about $2 billion in higher taxes, so spending 1/4 of that to keep Sanders from getting the nomination was a reasonable maneuver.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#924

Post by themitigating »

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.

If that's true then that's morally acceptable to stop republicans who have promoted lies about election fraud in an attempt to steal power in a democracy

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#925

Post by MontgomeryPi2 »

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…

Bingo. This strategy doesn't 'backfire' if it helps Trump become the 2024 GOP candidate. Feature not bug.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#926

Post by Tangurena2 »

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.

> if Trump paid directly himself, it wouldn't violate campaign finance laws?

That is still a campaign expense and needs to be reported to the state. Reporting on who donated money is a totally separate report.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#927

Post by themitigating »

paul7986 wrote: post #452
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…

No Trump fan but this is more political/media theater B.S. and brought on by all his many deep pocketed enemies. He surely has tons due to his awful mouth (shut it and do your job like Biden does for the people or Bush did or Obama). Nothing will happen to him just more lame reality TV type drama that gets ratings.

"I'm not a fan of Trump but I think he would be the best president ever and is god like in my eyes."

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#928

Post by Tangurena2 »

analog31 wrote: post #438
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 read, the indictment is sealed. Does that mean we don't really know precisely what the charges are yet? I'm willing to wait and see. Also, from everything I've read, well defended people are remarkably hard to convict. This is as it should be, as it may let some people go scot free, but protects the rest of us. Convicting Trump will be hard. It might fail. Does this mean that charges should not be brought…

Trump has a habit of not paying his bills. This has led him to complain in the past year that he is having trouble hiring attorneys.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#929

Post by Tangurena2 »

kelthan wrote: post #911
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…

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…

To be fair to Bill, he asked for a definition of "sex" and the definition he was given did not include a blowjob as part of that definition. Everybody else knows that a blowjob is a sexual act (when I lived in Florida, it was listed as "sodomy" but then if you weren't a married couple, everything other than "missionary" was defined as "sodomy").

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#930

Post by [deleted] »

themitigating wrote: post #919
_fat_santa wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN