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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#951

Post by trogdor »

vitus wrote: post #709
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…

As other commenters have pointed out, the actual indictment is sealed, so we won't find out the concrete charges until he's arraigned. I've recently served on a jury for a criminal trial, so I've learned some things about the process that courtroom dramas did not teach me. One: stacked charges (in this case, 30+) can indicate repeat offenses of the same crime / crimes on separate occasions (usually denoted as separat…

>beyond an unreasonable doubt

That is not the legal burden of proof in a criminal case. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#952

Post by danaris »

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…

> So that suggests that these moves are mainly about public opinion?

You know, we also have this thing in the Western world called "the rule of law". It's this really weird idea that when someone breaks the law, they should be punished for it, no matter how powerful or well-liked they are.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#953

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

singleshot_ wrote: post #947
CyberDildonics wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poli…

> “criminal blackmail excludes legal process,”

They're saying that "If you don't pay me $X, I'll tell your wife I slept with you" is not illegal, so it doesn't constitute criminal blackmail.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#954

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

mcv wrote: post #900
biorach wrote: post #692

Earlier 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?

This is why you should only break one law at a time.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#955

Post by macintux »

themitigating wrote: post #920
macintux wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He avoids depositions like the plague, and last year when he couldn’t he pleaded the 5th 440 times.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#956

Post by JakeAl »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #859
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #804

Earlier 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…

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#958

Post by ninkendo »

kevviiinn wrote: post #948
talkingtab wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s a really strange twisting of words. “Purpose” and “what [something] was designed to do” are literally synonymous. It’s the definition of purpose.

That reality deviates from purpose does not change the purpose, it just means no system is perfect.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#959

Post by kashunstva »

norwalkbear wrote: post #765
oxfordmale wrote: post #584

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…

It's weak case that has unified the party and base around Trump. Desantis fought with Trump two days ago, is now about him like a dear friend. If they couldn't get anything on Trump for J6, then they have nothing, and it's all witch hunts here. Bragg literally campaigned on arresting Trump too.

> It's [a] weak case

Without knowing the evidence presented to the grand jury, nor the charges on the indictment, it's hard to judge the strength or weakness of the prosecution's case again the man.

> If they couldn't get anything on Trump for J6, then they have nothing, and it's all witch hunts here

"They" are different prosecutors in different jurisdictions investigating different potential crimes. I don't see how it's possible to conclude that if evidence is lacking in one or more cases, that it's categorically improbable for this man to have committed crimes relative to any and all cases. In essence, you are claiming that lacking evidence of a causal connection to the events of January 6, we are to conclude that any criminal investigations involving this man in unrelated matters must likewise be baseless. This is illogical.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#960

Post by vitus »

trogdor wrote: post #951
vitus wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other commenters have pointed out, the actual indictment is sealed, so we won't find out the concrete charges until he's arraigned. I've recently served on a jury for a criminal trial, so I've learned some things about the process that courtroom dramas did not teach me. One: stacked charges (in this case, 30+) can indicate repeat offenses of the same crime / crimes on separate occasions (usually denoted as separat…

>beyond an unreasonable doubt That is not the legal burden of proof in a criminal case. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's correct. I mistyped, sorry!
Post reply on HN