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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#991

Post by TeeMassive »

dbbk wrote: post #678
TeeMassive wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just the statute of limitation should have made any judge laugh. It's the justice system of New York state that's on trial, not Trump.

It's well within the statute of limitations for 2 reasons; 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused

> 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID

for some civil cases, not criminal ones: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tollin...

> 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused

Surely you must be trolling?

I mean gee, all these Ivy League law professors (most of them not being Trump supporters) must not have been aware of that, somehow...

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#992

Post by HDThoreaun »

h4ch1 wrote: post #980
HDThoreaun wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? I haven't seen anything that makes me believe biden isn't mentally acute. I guess he's not very physically acute, but neither are half the people in this country, including Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14OK8_Cpiz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bWM1zsnTJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssNav3MnBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_59agcnLAj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIxP-c83ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFNyWYcVpc https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zhnUE5UBufw I don't understand why my comment was flagged, these are some examples, amongst many others that ratify what I sa…

He has a stutter, which is a physical issue that he has always had, not a mental one. It requires him to rethink sentences that he has already begun saying because it's impossible to know which words will trigger the stutter. IMO his ability to do that shows the he is mentally acute, not that he isn't. Not sure if you've ever realized halfway through a sentence that you can't say the next word, but it's not an easy situation to be in. His ability to overcome that physical disability is inspiring and imo a makes him a much better politician, even if it leads to struggles.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#993

Post by dang »

hajile wrote: post #989
dang wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that people draw the related/unrelated line very differently. The site mandate is intellectual curiosity, not political battle—but that still leaves quite a few stories with political overlap. If you look at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html you'll see the phrase "interesting new phenomenon". The current story surely qualifies as that. I've posted various explanations about this over the…

This has NOTHING to do with intellectual curiosity. Just try stating that Trump is innocent from another account and watch your comment get flagged and downvoted into oblivion. This kind of thread can be a lynch party, but nothing else. Anyone with any other thoughts will be silenced and punished by the majority.

It's an interesting phenomenon which is perfectly fine for intellectual curiosity, and there are plenty of comments in this thread relating to it that way. And of course there are also plenty of commenters bashing each other with partisan clubs. In that sense you are right. You're exaggerating the bias in the thread, though. For example the top subthread says "looks like a weak case" and was heavily upvoted.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#994

Post by Slava_Propanei »

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…

[dead]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#995

Post by dbbk »

TeeMassive wrote: post #991
dbbk wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's well within the statute of limitations for 2 reasons; 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused

> 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID for some civil cases, not criminal ones: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tollin... > 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused Surely you must be trolling? I mean gee, all these Ivy League law professors (most of them not being Trump supporters) must not have been aware of that, somehow...

In what way would I be trolling? It's true, look it up.

Besides, I very much doubt that the Manhattan District Attorney would go to all the effort of prosecuting a former president only to have not noticed that the statute of limitations has expired.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#996

Post by prepend »

TeeMassive wrote: post #990
freen wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only thing that matters: what is said under oath. The rest is marketing/BS.

> Only thing that matters: what is said under oath You mean that what a witness has said outside of court can't be presented as evidence?

I don’t think it can. You’d need the witness to testify or sign an affidavit and submit it as evidence. But there’s a lot of particulars about evidence so I think depends on how they said it.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#997

Post by TeeMassive »

dbbk wrote: post #995
TeeMassive wrote: post #991

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. NY paused it in 2020 due to COVID for some civil cases, not criminal ones: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tollin... > 2. Trump has lived outside of the state for a few years, meaning it's paused Surely you must be trolling? I mean gee, all these Ivy League law professors (most of them not being Trump supporters) must not have been aware of that, somehow...

In what way would I be trolling? It's true, look it up. Besides, I very much doubt that the Manhattan District Attorney would go to all the effort of prosecuting a former president only to have not noticed that the statute of limitations has expired.

> In what way would I be trolling? It's true, look it up.

Actually I did, even if the burden of proof was on you. And no, statute of limitation doesn't "pause" for criminal cases for any reasons as for the reason of their existence is memories and evidence fading over time and to avoid wrongful convictions. Being out of state has no effect on that.

> Besides, I very much doubt that the Manhattan District Attorney would go to all the effort of prosecuting a former president only to have not noticed that the statute of limitations has expired.

That's not the only novel legal theory being at play to convict for the first time a President here.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#998

Post by florbnit »

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…

> So the most salacious parts of the story are not what the crime is.

It’s funny how so many people think less of this crime because the misappropriated campaign funds where used for something so redicules, compared to if it had been just plainly stolen or used to buy a luxury car or something like that.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#999

Post by Truthisthis »

carlivar wrote: post #491
sanderjd wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're a dime a dozen (I don't think they are), then we should either make sure to provide high visibility instances in order to dissuade others from breaking the law, or we should change the laws if we don't think they are worth enforcing.

Note that Hillary Clinton's campaign was fined for a campaign finance violation. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-03-30/dnc...

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#1000

Post by codeddesign »

themitigating wrote: post #922
codeddesign wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually it does.

If we want to hold people accountable, then the same charges should have been brought against Clinton and Obama.

This is a stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Post reply on HN