Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#931

Post by Tangurena2 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

AustinDev wrote: post #421

sanderjd wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory as I understand it is that the payment was a large unreported contribution to his presidential campaign. It's not legal to do that, and the prosecutors believe they can demonstrate that's what happened.

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…

As someone who ran for a state-level elected office, I can tell you that campaign finance violations are not "a dime a dozen".

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#932

Post by lazyeye » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:49 PM UTC

w0m wrote: post #877

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…

> 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…

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#933

Post by Tangurena2 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

mightybyte wrote: post #661

protocolture wrote: post #641

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…

> doesn't prevent you from running for public office

For the vast majority of elected offices, one of the most important qualifications is "registered to vote in the district you are going to represent". Most offices have some age requirement (which might be as simple as "old enough to register to vote") and extremely few had some occupational requirement (like District Attorney has a law degree/license requirement, but Sheriff has no such requirement). When I ran for office in Colorado, failing to be registered to vote in the district you represent was the fastest and most automatic way of getting thrown out of office: no trial, no impeachment, just out you go.

The requirements for President are listed in the Constitution. Getting on the ballot in each state is harder as each state has different requirements.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#934

Post by notch898a » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #482

tablespoon wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I quoted the relevant section in another comment ( https://youtu.be/AAZLOygmR78 ). Your link is wrong, but now I probably know what you watch on youtube. > I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf Please make note of it for me, because I don't want to read a 68 page lega…

I was mistaken on the link - my comment was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381723 (alas, lazy clipboarding and not double checking) Page 18 of ALITO, J., dissenting. It is on page 82 of the pdf overall.

It might be interesting to argue whether taking public office as the president counts towards residency requirements. I don't know if it counts for statute of limitations, but for instance military members are still considered resident of their state when on duty elsewhere.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#935

Post by BizarroLand » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

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…

Before 2016/2017, I could tolerate Republican voters. Maybe we didn't agree on politics, but there was nothing personally distasteful about they themselves.

2017-2019, I found myself distancing myself from Republicans, it was like walking on eggshells trying to not say anything that would tangentially launch them into a political tirade or give them an opportunity to parrot the fox news talking point of the day.

2019, the pandemic happened. The loud screaming masses of Republicans went off the deep end due to their intolerable outrage over the personal inconvenience of trying to spare random "other people" from dying, even while they themselves were dying in droves.

2020, Jan 6. Republicans cheered as a shoddily assembled coup attempt dashed itself to pieces in Congress. A month later my texas republican trump loving dad died of covid because he refused to wear a mask or believe that the "china-virus" was anything other than a hoax.

He didn't even call me to tell me he had covid because he didn't want me to have even a moment of being proven right. He wanted to beat it and then laugh it off, show my liberal ass that there was no reason to be as cautious and concerned as I was.

So, yeah, when I find out someone is a republican today I can only assume that either you have immense hatred for anyone or anything that might show you the cracks in your preferred version of reality or at the very least that you are some combination of abominably stupid and heartless, and either way you look at it I want nothing to do with you.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#936

Post by _fat_santa » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:01 PM UTC

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…

> I can't even look at a Trump supportor without getting angry

I mean this with absolute sincerity: what makes you angry about him? Maybe it's because I've been reading the news for so long now but I feel like I'm completely desensitized to politics. With this indictment I find myself almost completely indifferent to it, it feels like another move in some elaborate chess game.

My best advice around politics is know that both sides are playing for your emotions. Both sides portray topics to evoke a particular emotion in you, most of the time the emotion they are going for is anger towards the other side, because negativity sells. Don't give these people access to your emotions, they don't deserve it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#937

Post by bb88 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #440

bb88 wrote: post #320

There's a lot of questions I think to what extent politicians (or appointed government offcials) should be accountable when they leave office. I think the poster child for this is Henry Kissenger. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/uk.kissinger/... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326306/

The tricky questions are all around things officials did in their official capacity. But crimes allegedly committed during the campaign prior to becoming a government official are not in this gray area.

Yes, for US law. But Europe and other international criminal courts offer no protection to war crimes done while in office.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#938

Post by dang » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:08 PM UTC

philosopher1234 wrote: post #564

dang wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a bad thing to guess about when you can just ask us! though sinister speculation is more fun, I know. Moderation didn't see it until someone told us about it and then we put it back on the front page.

Sorry dang. I thought it would say flagged if thats the reason it disappeared, but it had no flag marking. Moderation hiding this post isnt necessarily sinister, but i agree that speculation is more fun.

The software only displays [flagged] once the number of flags clears a certain threshold. I suppose we could add that to the FAQ!

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#939

Post by imbnwa » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

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.

Didn't Biden only best Trump by a small percentage? If correct, is that really 'easy to beat'?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#940

Post by mattbrewsbytes » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #907

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Jon Stewart's show or maybe one of the podcast episodes commented on how the mainstream media goes absolutely crazy over the potential of him getting caught or in court or whatever. Like weeks of talking about purely speculative things with zero actual news. It gets the networks lots of revenue.