Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#941

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

skellington wrote: post #476

AustinDev wrote: post #421

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#942

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:10 PM UTC

lazyeye wrote: post #932

w0m wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

> running your family as a syndicate

Evidence? And offspring doing something on their own doesn't count.

> illegal immigrants in order to sway voter demographics

That's not how voting works.

> dossier full of lies about your opponent

Sure that one counts. Sometimes both choices are bad. But one candidate doing something bad doesn't mean you increase what the other candidate can get away with.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#943

Post by ModernMech » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #921

ModernMech wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was being cheeky, sorry. To make my point directly, I think you get that it's the DA's job to prosecute crimes in his district. The year is 2023, and before him he has details of a crime. It doesn't matter that some other crime at some other time in the past wasn't prosecuted by some other prosecutor. It was never on Bragg to do so. The decision to prosecute this crime must be based on the evidence. It cannot be based on who Trump is, and whether other people who held his position were prosecuted for other unrelated things.

This has nothing to do about forgetting history, I lived through it and was calling for Bush to be prosecuted then. It's so weird to me that the people today who are saying "Well what about Bush!!" are mostly those who voted for him twice, at least in my circles.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#944

Post by corbulo » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:20 PM UTC

meghan_rain wrote: post #470

djha-skin wrote: post #114

To play devil's advocate a little bit. From a structural perspective, it was pretty much impossible for the courts to recruit any jury that wouldn't be biased. Furthermore, the case was in New York, which is a very democratic city. I would be surprised if any jury picked from there wasn't biased and wouldn't have convicted him of any crime the judge put in front of them. To be perfectly clear, I am not a fan of Donal…

> To be perfectly clear, I am not a fan of Donald Trump, and personally think he is likely guilty. I'm just commenting on a specific aspect of the case that I find interesting. Why is it necessary to state this? I find these kind of statements very interesting. They tell us a lot about unspoken rules, societal taboos, Overton windows etc etc

The charges aren't even published and people like the commenter replied to are saying he's guilty. Literally QED of the entire event (and the total lack of self awareness, 2nd+3rd order consequences) in and of itself.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#945

Post by jgwil2 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:22 PM UTC

Mavvie wrote: post #434

sashank_1509 wrote: post #199

Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thinks: 1. First there are two alternative realities being played in real time in US: This arguably is the first time this has happened in US history (maybe civil war was another time) but two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 diff…

> please quiz yourself what worldview would brag about being hated by UN. If you cant understand, you literally can't understand anything about ~48% of the country For a non-American, could someone kindly explain what worldview would brag about being hated by UN?

There is a strong current of isolationism in contemporary US conservative politics (see Trump's frequent disparagement of NATO, and the questioning of Western support for Ukraine for example). On the lunatic fringe many believe the UN is just the first step towards a "one world government" or "new world order" that would deprive them of their liberties as Americans.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#946

Post by singleshot_ » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:24 PM UTC

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #716

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 indictment is sealed so the actual charges aren't public, yet. Everyone is just speculating. Interesting items: - This is from the NY State courts so it is NY State laws in play (likely campaign finance laws), not Federal. If it were Federal it would be prosecuted by Federal attorney's in a Federal court. - A Grand Jury (for those that don't know) is composed of citizens, about 16-20 or something, that proceed li…

Just because a case is in New York State court does not mean that only New York State law will be at issue. It’s common for a state court to be asked to opine on the law of another state or on federal law.

That being said I don’t know if the NY statute that elevates the misdemeanor into a felony requires the predicate crime to be specifically prohibited by NY statute.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#947

Post by singleshot_ » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:34 PM UTC

CyberDildonics wrote: post #824

dukeofdoom wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person you had an affair with 10 years ago threatens you that they will tell your spouse or try to damage your reputation unless you pay them 130k, I think that would generally be considered extortion.

First, extortion would typically be with a threat of violence or destruction, so you are thinking of blackmail. Second, criminal blackmail excludes legal processes. Third, she didn't threaten trump, she tried to sell her story after he lied to her about being a contestant on the apprentice. https://www.scrofanolaw.com/federal-blackmail-and-extortion/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/19/nyregion/trump-stormy-dan...

Blackmail is a form of extortion. If it were true that extortion required violence or destruction (it does not) then so would blackmail.

I’m not exactly what you mean when you say that “criminal blackmail excludes legal process,” but if you mean that threatening to go to the police with evidence of a crime if the criminal does not give you something of value, you are absolutely mistaken.

Threatening to go to the police without seeking something of value for your silence is certainly legal, but the moment you try to sell your silence you’re going to be wandering around in the vicinity of extortion.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#948

Post by kevviiinn » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

talkingtab wrote: post #674

misssocrates wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when has the law applied to all the people equally?

Never. But the intent of the law is that it applies to people equally. And we have a jury to temper that with some humanity. And here is a question - is there another system that is better? We use the word "democracy" without understanding of what it means and what the intent is. If our best definition of democracy is "voting" then we have become a cargo cult democracy.

If it's the intent and that's what democracy is predicated on but it isn't then why does it matter? The purpose of a system is what it does, not what it was designed to do

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#949

Post by jshen » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 7:57 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #865

stuckinhell wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Trump has nearly religious following that scares many many people on the left and right. They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis. I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.

> They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc ANYTHING, eh? Please tell me, what did they do? Trump won an election (thanks to the mechanics of the Electoral College), he served as president, he passed laws (some of which the courts overturned, as happens with most presidents), he handed out pardons (some wise, some not), and then he lost an election. What is this "ANYTHING" that has been done…

Agree, and let's reverse it. Trump will do ANYTHING to stay in power, including the incitement of a violent coup attempt where they were chanting to hang his own VP!

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#950

Post by rhino369 » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 8:20 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #780

treis wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're getting him on the technicality that it was not him but one of his corporations that made the payment.

This isn't about campaign contribution limits, it's about declaring campaign expenses . As far as I've read, it was money his campaign legally had, spent on something he could legally spend it on... that he attempted to conceal the payment for, so it wouldn't show up in campaign finance reports. Ironically, if he'd just paid it directly from campaign funds and given it an obfuscated name ("PR Services"), he'd be in m…

>Ironically, if he'd just paid it directly from campaign funds and given it an obfuscated name ("PR Services"), he'd be in much less legal trouble now.

No, he would have probably instead be indicted for using campaign funds to pay a mistress under the theory that such a payment is not a valid campaign expense. The rules are so unclear that you could prosecute him either way.