21 ms·

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

• pyuser583 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • hedora 3y ago
    Note that Trump’s legal problems started decades before he was president. It’s not like there was some global conspiracy to target him all that time. He repeatedly scammed people, stole money, withheld payments, and worse.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• antibasilisk 3y ago
  [flagged]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• kernal 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • norwalkbear 3y ago
    [flagged]
• gardenfelder 3y ago
  https://archive.ph/UvNGq https://archive.ph/UvNGq
• Jumpingmanjim 3y ago
  [flagged]
• sam_goody 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • philosopher1234 3y ago
    Every single person in politics is a lizard on camera. And they are required to be by their voters. Better to focus on what outcomes they deliver than whether or not they are a lizard (they always are)
    • themitigating 3y ago
      He is lying about election fraud causing people to attack the Capital. That's an outcome
• philosopher1234 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • Meekro 3y ago
    Understandable, though. I'm sure the comments section will not represent the programmer community at their best.
    • helf 3y ago
      That might be an understatement judging by the initial comments :) gets popcorn
  • Kye 3y ago
    HN is probably not capable of having a conversation about this with any amount of signal. Sometimes more polarizing political news gets a nudge up to the front from the mods if it's historically significant like elections. Those threads demonstrate why political stuff usually gets pushed out.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • ianai 3y ago
      Sure but this is historic. Locally, when they called the election for Biden there were spontaneous celebrations in the streets of my local city. People seem to forget just how extreme those years were and how they felt.
  • csense 3y ago
    Just refreshed after being away for a while, and it now shows as [flagged]. I think years ago HN used to have a way you could "vouch" for flagged content to unflag it, but I don't see the option, maybe they took it away at some point?
    • organsnyder 3y ago
• not_enoch_wise 3y ago
  [flagged]
• dukeofdoom 3y ago
  I remember helicopters flying back and forth when the riots broke out, kept me up. Will I be watching Civil War across the border? I'm getting the feeling that things are going too far, and sensible people let the crazies take over. Feels like a setup for DeSantis to run, while keeping Trump in legal limbo.
• Kye 3y ago
  LegalEagle has quite a few videos on the various investigations into Trump, his organization, and his associates if you're curious about process: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalEagle/search?query=grand%20jury https://www.youtube.com/@LegalEagle/search?query=grand%20jur... He'll probably have a video out on this soon.
  • dukeofdoom 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • Kye 3y ago
      What do you mean? He's a real lawyer and law professor. I haven't heard of any of these criticisms. edit: I can't reply, so... Specific criticisms, please? The link is to a video with a Canadian lawyer and someone who might actually have a relevant opinion on US law who, several minutes in, can only seem to broadly and mockingly dismiss him without saying anything specific other than accuse him of being biased and mock him for crying. Biased is not the same as wrong. edit 2: Specific as in: what has he been wrong about?
      • dukeofdoom 3y ago
        [flagged]
      • dukeofdoom 3y ago
        Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5_hVrfBjRs&t=3456s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5_hVrfBjRs&t=3456s
        • ianai 3y ago
          You’ll always be able to find a lawyer that will disagree with another lawyer. Edit-You can even pay them to disagree with each other. And! People do this all the time!
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
• infamouscow 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • flangola7 3y ago
    What do you mean? I want this, why would history be unkind to me?
    • dukeofdoom 3y ago
      Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Better serve as long as possible in that case, and use the power of government to keep himself in power. Kind of what used to happen before democracy.
      • flangola7 3y ago
        > Why would any future president ever want to relinquish power, when a future of prosecution awaits him. Because if he doesn't relinquish it the other branches will remove him anyway, as was imminent with Nixon. Trump wasn't convicted by the Senate, but his butt was still kicked out of the White House on Inauguration Day. American democracy isn't fantastic but it's still a long way from the President having absolute control. "They will double down if we try to punish them." is a hollow argument that could be used to justify not punishing any crime. A pickpocket might try to run or fight back if he knows he will be punished, but that's not a reason to let him do it, it's a reason to have teams of fit people equipped with tazers and handcuffs that can subdue him anyway.
        • stuckinhell 3y ago
          Richard Nixon won the 1972 U.S. presidential election by a large margin. He defeated the Democratic Party nominee, George McGovern, by winning 60.7% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes out of 537. This was one of the largest landslides in U.S. presidential election history. It wasn't imminent at all. If Nixon wanted to end the republic as we know it, he nearly could have. He had a insane mandate by the people.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• alsaaro 3y ago
  Remember, a Grand Jury indicted John Edwards, a vice-Presidential candidate, for essentially the same thing Trump is being accused of -- that is using campaign funds to hide an affair. Prior to Edward's indictment he was thought be the future of the democratic party, if Edwards was convicted on all counts he faced up the 30 years in prison, he beat the charges though -- a rarity in federal prosecutions. So there is precedent for indictments for this particular crime, not that this should matter, in a republic everyone is subject to the same law and jurisprudence.
  • bruceb 3y ago
    >Prior to Edward's indictment he was thought be the future of the democratic party Respectfully he wasn't seen that way. His indictment was in 2011. Obama was president and still had another election to do. Edwards had not been relevant since 2008, really since 2004, as no one thought he could be Hilary or Obama in the primary. >So there is precedent for indictments for this particular crime One could argue its shows this is a waste of time and money. The country doesn't need this. Trump was fading away.
    • throwaway6734 3y ago
      >The country doesn't need this. Trump was fading away. Agree with the former, disagree with the latter. he's still the frontrunner to win the gop primary
      • bruceb 3y ago
        in 2015/6 The GOP field didnt know what do with Trump and for the most part only half attacked him thinking he was a side show who would burn out. He also had no political baggage and no prominent court cases Now he as alienated a lots of people, he lost an election, facing multiple court cases. He will have at least one or two R candidates who will directly attack him. He will have to fight 'wars' on multiple fronts. Plus he is 8 years older than when he first started running. Closer to 80 than 70. Is it possible he would have won nomination? Yes but I think was less likely and slipping away from him. The bad thing for Trump might not be the indictment but that it didn't happen in December 2023.
• ragnot 3y ago
  As the saying goes: "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich". Still big news...I'll just wait and see if the charges stick.
  • BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
    Indictment is an unfamiliar and intimidating word. In reality it begins a much more involved process and it doesn’t indicate guilt. It is most certainly not a verdict or a prelude to a sentence being handed down, as many people seem to believe judging by social media.
    • Hilarity1 3y ago
      But you can imagine the governments case is extra extra buttoned up considering the accused.
• nirav72 3y ago
  Political theater. If anything, this will help Trump and possibly give him a boast in his own party.
  • brucethemoose2 3y ago
    Even in the absolute worst case scenario for Trump (he loses and... has a massive fine? Is in jail for a bit?), this is a huge boost to Trump's campaign handed to him on a silver platter. Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper.
    • tshaddox 3y ago
      This framing comes up all the time. Is there anything that would…not be good for Trump’s campaign?
      • nemo44x 3y ago
        Ignoring him and letting him yell at clouds. But they couldn’t help themselves. They’ve seen massive losses in the polls and figured they’d drag the guy out as they did ok last time against him. I think this will backfire though.
      • jfengel 3y ago
        Yes... but it takes a global pandemic at exactly the right time. That doesn't change his support, but it does get people off the couch who might otherwise have decided that Both Sides Are Bad. Other than that most news is Heads I Win Tails You Lose. Any publicity is good publicity when it puts you in front of cameras to cast aspersions on your opponents.
      • furyofantares 3y ago
        ignoring him?
        • tshaddox 3y ago
• andrekandre 3y ago
  > After he became president, Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the hush money and falsely recorded those payments as legal fees. so, if i understand correctly, the main issue is the "falsely recorded those payments as legal fees" part and not the hush money part?
  • encryptluks2 3y ago
    [dead]
  • rnjesus 3y ago
    yeah, paying money to someone to keep them quiet isn’t necessarily illegal (i think.. a lawyer’s knowledge would be appreciated here), but trying to write it off as legal fees seems to be the issue. i imagine there are tax implications, as well as what pool of cash the money was paid from (i.e. if it was from campaign money). it’s impossible to say for certain what the exact issue is until the charges are revealed
    • hedora 3y ago
      The legal fee thing is a case of misdemeanor falsification of business records on its own. The fact that it was done to cover up a second crime (breaking federal campaign finance law) arguably converts it to a felony according to New York state law.
      • zaroth 3y ago
        But NY can’t charge for that felony. It’s an absurd combination and nothing like it has ever been brought. It reeks of a targeted campaign, well because it is. It’s why the DA was elected and exactly what he said he would do. So that’s really not a good look, no matter who it’s against.
    • RoyGBivCap 3y ago
      IANAL but I know that a lot of companies when they lay people off give them various "parachutes" in the form of money and included are anti-disparagement clauses, that if broken you have to return the money. And a lot of settlement cases could be argued to do the same thing. Using campaign money to do it might be illegal. Again, not a lawyer. And then there's the whole "a DA can indict a ham sandwich" notion. I don't pretend to know how this is going to shake out, but I've got my popcorn.
• dang 3y ago
  All: please don't post low-substance and/or high-indignation and/or political battle comments to this thread, or any HN thread. We're trying for something else here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. This is on the front page because it's historically significant and intellectually interesting; so please comment if you have something to say that enhances those aspects. I know it's hard to detach from the passions of the moment, but that's kind of necessary for curious conversation*, so it's good practice. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
• mbgerring 3y ago
  Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.
  • rufus_foreman 3y ago
    "Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders" The founders of the United States were criminals and traitors. "we must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately"
  • walrus01 3y ago
    Meanwhile, adjacent to presidents, Henry Kissinger remains both alive and not charged in any international criminal courts. I think he's literally 99 years old now.
    • cool_dude85 3y ago
      Doesn't the US credibly threaten to invade the Hague should any international court there decide to pursue charges against an American citizen? Best you could hope for is domestic charges or for Kissinger to make a visit to Viet Nam and get arrested there.
      • walrus01 3y ago
        I don't think one NATO country can credibly threaten to invade another, so not really, no... But clearly the US did not sign up to the international criminal court / war crimes courts etc because they were worried about random US DoD personnel who killed civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan being hauled in front of the court. Somebody like Robert Bales for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre As he has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole the US takes the position that they want to prosecute such things within their own system.
• Scubabear68 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • pyuser583 3y ago
    He’s the result of our crappy primary system. The UK Tories decided to copy it and wound up with Liz Truss. The Canadian Conservatives tried something similar and wound up with obscurity.
  • dashundchen 3y ago
    People are flagging you but seriously, if you pay attention to state and level GOP politics, the legislative priority of all things is... Banning drag queens? And books that mention anything besides white/cis/straight experiences? Railing against ESG funds? These are the most pressing issues the base think needs to be addressed? I think these GOP efforts inflict real harm, but the top-priotity obsession against trans people is so strange to me, especially when trans people are a tiny fraction of the whole population. What happened to being the party of free speech? I am serious, if someone honestly can explain the GOPs enacted platform outside of being "anti-woke" I'd be interested to hear it. I don't see a vision, I see the mob culture war politics they claim they fighting.
    • Scubabear68 3y ago
      I expected my post to be a roller coaster. But seriously, taking an HN viewpoint, the GOP has stopped looking at any data other than polls a long time ago (and has only accelerated that trend over time). And real harm is being done to people in the meanwhile.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• photochemsyn 3y ago
  I think it sets a good precedent. If indicting past presidents (and vice presidents) for crimes committed while in office (or while running for office), well, the courts are going to be busy on this front for years to come. Bush and Cheney are certainly candidates, r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims. The list could be expanded to include charges related to the unConstitutional domestic spying programs, the assassination of an American citizen without due process, the kickbacks from foreign countries in the form of jobs for family members, the lack of prosecutorial effort regarding the 2008 subprime fraud situation... and just imagine if these prosecutorial standards were also applied to the House and Senate? The perp walk would stretch around the block.
  • cool_dude85 3y ago
    I think the reason this indictment is tolerated is precisely due to it not being about any of those things. Anyone who wants to be President will be comfortable doing all the things you list, and probably worse we don't know about, but they are also generally savvy enough to keep their non-political crimes plausibly deniable. So, go after Trump specifically when he wasn't able to do that much.
    • dmix 3y ago
      100% even if Clinton had done something similar with his sex stuff and got charged that doesn’t mean Bush/Cheney would have been more likely to be held legally accountable. Especially at a time when it mattered.
  • adrr 3y ago
    We’ve prosecuted a vice president candidate for similar crimes. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senator-and-presidential-candidate-john-edwards-charged-alleged-role-scheme-violate https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senator-and-presidenti...
    • rvz 3y ago
      Exactly. I also guarantee you that this 2011 prosecution was of remote interest and wasn't raced to the top of HN at the time and even if it was posted it would be either ignored, or flagged to oblivion as it is off-topic. Furthermore, I don't see how is this whole thread is related to 'Hacker News', or where this is 'intellectually interesting' as it is already reported in the news. It is only for pure politics and a degraded comments section with flamebait.
• shivapb80 3y ago
  [flagged]
• shivapb80 3y ago
  [flagged]
• nimbius 3y ago
  if anyones wondering why an indictment might not have charges announced, its generally because the prosecution is working to limit the ability of the defendant to influence the court of public appeal before the trial. The prosecution is certainly versed in former president Trumps histrionic theatricality.
  • golemotron 3y ago
    So it remains sealed until the trial?
    • zarzavat 3y ago
      That would be a very effective way of getting convictions :), but no, he has to know the charges against him so that he can provide a defense.
• bsuvc 3y ago
  Hacker News is better without unrelated political news.
  • mjmsmith 3y ago
    Have to agree. I don't read extremist right- (or left-) wing websites, so HN is really my only exposure to how some of these people think. It's not a good look.
  • jasoneckert 3y ago
    My knowledge of political events is sparse because I haven't dedicated the time it takes to acquire the prerequisite knowledge. However, I'd be interested in learning more from those here who do have that knowledge and are willing to share perspective on these sort of events. In general, I think it's valuable to be curious about things you're not necessarily interested in.
    • bsuvc 3y ago
      Everything you say can be true and it doesn't change the fact the HN would be worse because of it. HN is a place I come to escape the rest of the internet. I hope it doesn't get ruined by politics, like everything else in the world seems to have been.
      • ryder9 3y ago
        [dead]
      • Kye 3y ago
        There was a busy front page thread for each of Obama's election wins, Trump's First, and Biden's win. There were numerous busy threads on the Obama campaign's use of technology leading up to his first election. I'd say it's working out okay ~15 years into the experiment of unkilling certain historically significant political threads.
      • time0ut 3y ago
        There are usually a few threads discussing major or controversial political news. Dang is good about collapsing them and keeping things isolated there. It is pretty easy to avoid these threads and they fall off the front page quickly. I don’t think they add much to HN, but I like to skim them as this community’s take is the least biased.
• throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  Is it weird that I don't care? When he was in office he drove me insane. Now I really couldn't be bothered. I think I'm desensitized to... politics, or justice, or something.
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    No i think this is a reasonable response. I’ve completely checked out of politics as well after 4 years of trump and two years of a continued culture war.
    • thathndude 3y ago
      Same here. Sad thing is that I used to enjoy following politics. Now, I just steer clear entirely. It’s all a farce, both sides. The media needs to stop making Trump relevant so that we all can move on.
      • arcatech 3y ago
        He’s the first former President to be indicted. There’s no way for him to not be relevant.
      • d23 3y ago
        They need to start ignoring the leading GOP candidate who actively conspired to overthrow the election and just received a criminal indictment -- a first ever in this nation's history?
  • krapp 3y ago
    No. When Trump was in power, he mattered and his nonsense had real consequences, and he had a presence on all of the major social media platforms, and people willing to take violence to the streets for him. Now he's shrieking in all caps in his little corner of the internet and making deranged threats about "consequences" if he's arrested and... almost no one seems to care. He's no longer leader of the free world, he's just a rich, corrupt asshole shrieking into the void and shilling NFTs. There are worse things coming down the pipeline than Trump anyway, it seems he was just a trial balloon for the fascist era we're heading into. I just wish he'd go away already.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  I am going to post a mildly unpopular opinion on what it actually means. In a word: nothing. Regardless of how you see Trump, he is, and has been basically since he became President, the presumptive nominee of the Republican party with remaining candidates hoping to take him down. With all that in mind, what does this indictment actually mean in terms of possible penalty? In a word: nothing. Felon can still run for POTUS spot. There is a reason for that too along the lines of "well, you don't want current political party to just make up shit willy-nilly". All this before we even get to the substance of the actual transgression, which, to me at least, is on about the same level as Bill Clinton's charge ( and arguably, his was worse depending on deeply you want to discuss it -- because contrary to some comedians, it was not just about a bj ). So who benefits? Trump. Media ( good circus equals good ratings ). The guy who will be running the circus will make a name for himself. And.. that is it. I am not even sure why I am taking this as stoically as I am. Maybe the over the top happiness displayed on other social media made me hesitate. FWIW, I am all about 'no one is above the law', but, I think, anyone on this forum can easily point to instances where that is not exactly axiomatic lately. And I think you will note my restraint in not pointing out any names for the sake of trying to keep this post semi-neutral in tone. Now.. note that they are getting him on some relatively small stuff. All that stuff about Russia, nuclear secrets raid, running bs charity, being peed on.. none of that panned out in a way that touched Trump. And that is the last card to play. You would think they would get him at least on something better to put on the news. They are getting him on a legal technicality that he will shrug off the same way he shrugged off not paying taxes. And this? This will only make believers more adamant and it does not in any way damage Trump. This is democrats saying: "We don't know how, but by golly we are gonna lose this one!" You gotta laugh man. You gotta. Otherwise you will start crying.
  • RoyGBivCap 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • wilsonnb3 3y ago
    > Now.. note that they are getting him on some relatively small stuff. All that stuff about Russia, nuclear secrets raid, running bs charity, being peed on.. none of that panned out in a way that touched Trump. And that is the last card to play. There are like 3 other criminal investigations currently ongoing into him, plus a civil one in New York. https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigations-civil-criminal.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigations-civil-c...
• at_a_remove 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • webdood90 3y ago
    I don't understand how anyone can justify this perspective. If a crime is committed, there should be consequences. I don't care who it is or what their status is. Instead of accepting it as status-quo, we should be going after everyone at every level, even more fiercely towards politicians.
    • umvi 3y ago
      It's like the political equivalent of digging through someone's comment history on social media, looking for something that can be weaponized to cancel them. If power balances shift slightly I'm sure the new regime will be able to find a crime Biden committed and indict him for it. And so on and so forth with revenge indictments everytime power shifts to the other party
      • webdood90 3y ago
        Great! I'm all for it! People that break the law should be punished. Why is this a problem for you or I?
        • umvi 3y ago
          It's not directly a problem for you or I per se, but it is a new form of political warfare that will further polarize and destabilize the nation...
    • at_a_remove 3y ago
      Well, a crime doesn't need to have been committed. You just have to find someone in power willing to bring charges. This could very well be the start of a cycle of "when the power shifts, prosecute the last guy for whatever it is you think you can make up." How many shots have they taken at the man so far? Plenty. Should this cycle start, look for it to consume a lot of resources, attention, political willpower, and so on, while various Actual Trouble gets overlooked because it just doesn't have that wow drama factor. We've had six years of sore losers (whose own "pied piper strategy" fouled them up) endlessly vacuuming up mindshare while a lot bigger things are going down.
• djha-skin 3y ago
  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 Donald Trump, and personally think he is likely guilty. I'm just commenting on a specific aspect of the case that I find interesting.
  • vmladenov 3y ago
    In the very democratic city you cite, 3.2 million people voted for Trump to Biden’s 5.2. I’m sure the defense can find a handful of supporters among that population they’re content with.
  • dmreedy 3y ago
    Martin Shkreli also attempted this defense.
  • hindsightbias 3y ago
    The Donald was very popular with the blue collar in NYC back in the day.
  • dirck 3y ago
    The defense gets to voir dire the jury. There were still millions of votes for Trump in NY and many that didn't vote at all.
    • djha-skin 3y ago
      A fair point.
    • sanderjd 3y ago
      I don't think this is the case for grand juries...
      • 3y ago
• robomartin 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • unethical_ban 3y ago
    Last line: >don't take sides First line: >This has the makings of a Liberal (capital L, sic) pileup Any criticism or callout of your factual or logical fallacies will only reinforce your conspiratorial mindset. Since there aren't any "facts" to debate in your post, I'll just say you're wrong and move on.
    • robomartin 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • unethical_ban 3y ago
        There is a part of me that wonders how wise this is, not because Trump doesn't deserve it, but because Republicans will do the "my turn" and try to witch-hunt every opponent, even moderate Republicans, who they don't like. Donald Trump is a criminal, and his crimes against this country were well documented in two impeachments. I agree that having "only" a tax fraud prostitution coverup is not ideal. Unfortunately, the Republicans in the Senate proved how disloyal they are to this country, twice, when they had to choose between retaining their psychotic base and doing what is right for the country. There is very little reputable right-wing sources of news, by the way. WaPo, maybe WSJ non-opinion section. Fox is not news. What's the option? Straight-up not prosecute anyone who pays enough to run for president every four years, no matter their prospective crimes?
        • robomartin 3y ago
          I disagree with some of what you are saying. I won’t address it though. I have learned the hard way it is pointless. Nobody wants a conversation. I’ll just say US politics, from every angle, has been royally fucked for decades. Our politicians have made lying to us a virtue. Our laws protect the with immunity. High level example: Obama’s promises about Obamacare. Lies. He is a multimillionaire now. No consequences. No legal recourse whatsoever. Our media is no better. They lie and manipulate 24/7, sometimes working with or under government supervision. While Americans yell at each other online while convinced they know what’s going on (sad joke of unimaginable proportions) the country is shredding itself from the inside out. The Chinese are watching this and shitting themselves laughing at the stupidity of the American voter and politicians. I don’t know what to say any more. Keep looking at the shadows on the wall. One day they will be replaced by the sad reality we are creating.
• pessimizer 3y ago
  This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounded that the centrist blob thinks that they can get away with this utilizing a largely right-wing military, an extremely right-wing police force, and a extremely well-armed and numerous right-wing element of the population. It's madness. Maybe (most likely) the lords of surveillance and and propaganda have a better idea of the country's pulse and and potential reaction than I do. Maybe the incompetents in the Biden Admin aren't running the show, and the intelligence agencies are fully and competently in control. If some African, Central Asian or South American country arrested the presidential frontrunner for paying a prostitute not to mention that he patronized her, everyone would recognize it as a country about to fall into violent anarchy. It's sad that in the clouds our suburban upper-middle class have their heads in, there apparently aren't any mirrors. If you believe in democracy, you hate this. If you believe in the version of the "rule of law" being bandied around that insists that law occupies some abstract space above the will of the deplorable population, a place ruled by angels that resemble the Warren Court and were educated at Harvard, Yale, or small private liberal arts colleges in the northeast - I think you may be absolutely blindsided in the coming months. edit: somehow, corporations got the unlimited ability to bribe politicians and political parties, but campaign finance laws can be warped to cover this shit.
  • rabite 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • archagon 3y ago
    The guy is a fucking criminal and this is long overdue. Your rant is unhinged.
    • RoyGBivCap 3y ago
      0 convictions and he's a criminal?
• jimmygrapes 3y ago
  Seems like a good time to remind folks that "indicted" is a synonym for "accused"
  • askvictor 3y ago
    More like "committed to stand trial." There's a certain level of evidence required to get to this point, so as not to be wasting the courts' time.
• nemo44x 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • jeffbee 3y ago
    Innocuous?
    • nemo44x 3y ago
      Is it really that serious? Sounds like a fine at worst and although I’m not privy to the evidence I do know that his former lawyer who has testified against him is a convicted criminal and untrustworthy. It just doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
    • norwalkbear 3y ago
      Yes
  • vore 3y ago
    While at face value it looks like this charge is a weird and probably bad use of political capital, with what we do know I don't think Joe Everyman should be getting away with embezzling political campaign donations to pay off strippers. There's an argument to be made that the charge is weak but definitely not that it's innocuous...
    • drtz 3y ago
      I don't think it's that the charge is "weak," necessarily. This would have been a huge charge for someone in Trump's political position 10 or 20 years ago. Even today, pretty much any other politician would have their career destroyed for either one of the things he's being accused of by itself: sleeping with a porn star or gross misuse of campaign funds. For me, it's more that these crimes he's accused of really pale in comparison to other things we've seen Trump say and do, like the two things he was impeached for.
  • stuckinhell 3y ago
    100%. It's would have far better to just defeat Trump in 2024, and let him go slink into the shadows. Now a red line has been crossed, the GOP is seems to be gearing up for civil war. They keep talking about the 6 Christians martyred and how no corporation or the "Biden Regime" has acknowledged them. Desantis has come out on Trump's side, even though days ago he said he wouldn't. Escalation is occurring, and it's sheer arrogance to think this thing doesn't reek of pure politics. I'm legitimately scared we have summoned something we cannot contain.
• anonu 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • vlovich123 3y ago
    Genuine question. Do you think the Democratic Party itself is conspiring with the DA to bring these charges? Is it at all possible that Bragg is bringing these charges because Trump broke the law and his former lawyer already went to jail for this exact same crime Given that what he did was at Trump’s direct behest? Ie how would this look different if this wasn’t something that the DNC was trying to orchestrate as a political persecution? I’m also curious how you’re coloring Muller as something the Democrat’s failed to get him on when it was a Republican special prosecutor assigned by Trump’s own DOJ. What was the involvement of the Democratic Party there?
    • pessimizer 3y ago
      Why is speculating about this stuff helpful? This is just you assuming the best of everyone and asking why other people assume the worst. None of us (I'm lying, this is HN and there are billionaire insiders browsing it) have any idea of what's going on behind closed doors during this endless process of trying to disqualify Trump from standing in the next election.
      • vlovich123 3y ago
        Correct. I’m trying to highlight that assumptions in both directions are equally bad. I’m not asking anyone to assume anything else. I only asked some questions.
    • anonu 3y ago
      > conspiring I wouldn't use that word. Of course, if you break the law, you should be brought to justice no matter who you are. But come on.. Let's not be overly naive and believe that everyone operates in their own virtuous bubble.
      • vlovich123 3y ago
• unethical_ban 3y ago
  Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that he is guilty of this crime. Should we ignore it? If we further acknowledge that he is a nitwit without an inkling of knowledge about history, respect for democracy or the United States unless it aligns with his aggrandizement, then is this not like trying to nail Al Capone for tax fraud? Are their supposedly intelligent people on this forum who truly believe Donald Trump to be a patriotic American, holding the interests of the country above the interests of himself?
  • pessimizer 3y ago
    Most countries immunize declared candidates for parliaments or the presidency, because it's a basic premise of democracy. If the population, by direct referendum, believes this person should be in government, whatever forces that are doing the prosecuting are a minority. Makes sense to have some minor flexibility in this standard, so people aren't continually running for elections in order to stay out of prison. But if (for example) a criminal like K. Fujimori is running for president of Peru, she is obviously a serious candidate and shouldn't be legally threatened.
    • sanderjd 3y ago
      > Most countries immunize declared candidates for parliaments or the presidency I don't think this is true factually, and even if it is, I disagree that it's a good policy. But even if I thought it was a good policy, it isn't the policy we have in the US.
    • askvictor 3y ago
      Do you have such a list of countries? Australia, for example, does not allow anyone with a criminal record to hold office (and they get kicked out if they are convicted while serving). And how do you feel about convicted felons not having voting rights (as seems to be the case in many US states)?
• poulsbohemian 3y ago
  I know it is campaign finance fraud that is the actual charge, but that fact that of all the possible things they could have charged him with, it's something tied to a sexual act feels so both disappointing and so American. It's likely they can actually get a conviction, so I guess there's that. You can already assume right-wing media will spin this into "Really? All you could get him for was a BJ?" Feels a bit like the late-night comedy of the Clinton impeachment.
  • zamalek 3y ago
    The sex stuff is merely more along than the others, and it opens him up to more discovery. For example, Trump's client attorney privilege was pierced just this week due to his using lawyers to commit crimes (in the classified documents case).
  • rippercushions 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • norwalkbear 3y ago
      [flagged]
    • anon291 3y ago
      Americans have insurrections all the time. For example, there was an insurrection in Tennessee today. It's an american tradition. Literally no American is going to stand to have any politician indicted for having passionate voters. This is surprising to many non-americans, but America does not like stifling speech. It's simply a small minority of prominent Americans that are calling for Trump to face any charges for 'inciting an insurrection'.
      • anon291 3y ago
        There was another insurrection in Florida today
  • djha-skin 3y ago
• walterbell 3y ago
  What would John G. Trump (1907-1985) think? https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20181019a/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2018101... & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Trump > American electrical engineer, inventor, and physicist. A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1936 to 1973, he was a recipient of the National Medal of Science and a member of the National Academy of Engineering ... In 1943, after the enigmatic Nikola Tesla’s death, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked Trump to examine Tesla’s papers to determine whether he had been working on anything that might have relevance to the war. ... After the war Trump became the director of MIT’s High-Voltage Research Laboratory, a position he held from 1946 until his retirement in 1980.
• talkingtab 3y ago
  We are a people who have decided to be governed by laws rather than kings, or religions or dictators or putins. The laws applies to all the people equally. Everyone is entitled to a jury. A jury of peers decides. That is who we are. That is what a democracy is.
  • stuckinhell 3y ago
    Half the country thought Hillary Clinton should be arrested for emails. Not a good metric.
    • vmladenov 3y ago
      “Half” is an obscenely generous estimation.
      • dragonwriter 3y ago
        > “Half” is an obscenely generous estimation. It is actually low by 6%, if you read “disagrees withe the decision not to recommend charging her with a crime” as equalling “believes she should be arrested” (though I suppose it is theoretically possible to think the FBI should have recommended charges but the DoJ should still not have charged, or to not understand that arrest is a natural consequence of criminal charges.) https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-...
    • Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
      And no DA could find 12 people to agree to press charges? Maybe think about the implications of that one
    • SideQuark 3y ago
      Arrests are not made on popular votes. The FBI was the legal authority to investigate and decide on charges, and they clearly said nothing was near a legal threshold to charge. Hillary complied with them, didn't fight in the courts for years, didn't obstruct. The only places making such nonsense noise was certain media outlets. The only accurate info the public has is from the FBI statements (and a few later FOIA releases). Rad those to get a correct idea of what is known. So such polls are at best outrage fodder. As the OP said, we have laws. Not mob lynchings.
• sashank_1509 3y ago
  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 different realities. An amusing moment that depicts this occurred in John Oliver's recent segment where he plays a clip of Ron Desantis bragging that the UN hates the laws he passed and John plays it completely incredulous why would someone brag that he is hated by the UN. Since this audience is mostly liberal and understands the liberal worldview, 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, and if you're serious about politics you need to at least understand the 2 sides, ideally more than that. The fact is most of the US population barely understands the other side and so they will necessarily clash on most political issues. 2. There is a huge amount of democratic energy on both sides. There was always a lot of political energy on the left, since RooseVelt, Civil Rights movement, now LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter etc. It used to be a characteristic of the left. Now there is in fact a suprisingly large amount of political energy on the right, that first started with the Tea Party Movement in the 2010's and of culminating Trump who could essentially be considered a Populist Leader from the Right. 3. So we have two populations, with large political energies compared to any time in recent history, who also see the world so differently that neither can understand each other. The only reason this hasn't led to civil war like situation is because they both still to some extent follow the law, and still believe in Democracy as a schelling point for choosing who rules them. Now if you go ahead and jail the populist leader, you are going even closer to complete political fracture especially after a good chunk of the population believes the election was stolen from him. If you think this will convince any Trump supporters they're wrong (lol), I have a pipe dream to sell you. Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history? If your instant answer wasn't Obama (or if it was Obama because of drone strikes lol), you definitely do not understand the other side in any meaningful way to heal any political fracture this country is suffering with. So good job playing your reenactment in our version of Populares vs Optimates, and we all know how that ended
  • cma 3y ago
• nu11ptr 3y ago
  I do think that presidents should be charged and tried just like anybody else. IMO they should get no special treatment - same laws and process should apply. It does seem like an odd indictment in light of past crimes committed by presidents, so if they are going to go after Trump, they should go after others as well.
• NuSkooler 3y ago
  Without the law applying to all, there is no law. The fact that we've come this far -- with all that Trump has done -- and are now only getting to what equates to a grain of sand in the grand scheme of all that he has managed to pull off... that tells you a lot. We've been playing with fire for a long time. If this isn't just the start of charges, we're in a lot of trouble.
• dukeofdoom 3y ago
  Judging comments from republicans on Twitter "this is a political prosecution, from a biased Soros backed prosecutor" Selective prosecution to try to sway an election was rejected once by voters after when Bill Clinton was impeached for his affair. So this will not directly boost Democrat's chances, might even make Donald a martyr. But would make sense if the strategy was to split the vote on the right. Trump being in legal trouble is the carrot that got DeSantis to run. The problem is if DeSanits defeats Trump in the primary, he can't win in the general precisely because he defeated Trump. Trump has too many supporters that will never switch sides.
  • stuckinhell 3y ago
    Desantis just backed Trump, we are summoning something that is escalating out of control and cannot be contained. Republican Twitter keeps talking about "6 Christians Marytred and ignored by Joe Biden and the Corporations" , "3 leftists state insurrections", and more.
  • meragrin_ 3y ago
    > Bill Clinton was impeached for his affair. He was impeached for lying about the affair in a legal setting and not for the affair itself.
• dukeofdoom 3y ago
  I understand this is a revised case, with a new legal theory. Public opinion matters, the case has to be sufficient enough to go after a leading candidate for president. so lots of questions like this will come up: What does the state of NY have anything to do with enforcing federal election laws? How is paying hush money a crime, when it hasn't been before? How can it be an illegal Campaign contribution, when Trump was financing his own campaign? 7 year old case, how isn't this past statue of limitations? The State's witness is a self-confessed liar, how can his testimony be sufficient.
• bb88 3y ago
  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/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/22/uk.kissinger/... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326306/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326306/
  • sanderjd 3y ago
    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.
    • bb88 3y ago
      Yes, for US law. But Europe and other international criminal courts offer no protection to war crimes done while in office.
• kazinator 3y ago
  Inciting a legion of goons to attack the White House is one thing, but paying hush money to a porn star is on a whole new level; that just can't be ignored. No siree.
  • mikeyouse 3y ago
    If it makes you feel better, he's also going to be indicted for that in the near future.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• motohagiography 3y ago
  The argument for what makes it a bad precedent is that it means incumbent parties will use it to prosecute their opposition. If the best you can do is jail your opponents to keep them from running, that's not representation, it's just a war for control of a weapon. I think he will gain unexpected support from some principled moderates as a result. There is a streak of nihilism in the tactics used against this former president, and it has become an attrition game where winning means being the last one disqualified for cheating or the only one left not in jail. As though they think it's only organized crime when you lose. Comedian Duncan Trussel quipped the other day that politics has become, "an Olympics for narcisistic sociopaths," and that's a pretty good characterization. I'm not American and I can't say I'm neutral, but I do think that the malice this indictment demonstrates is weakness, and that's a fundamentally un-american sentiment that will repel a lot of reasonable people. I have acquaintences who will treat it as a betrayal, but what I believe is that Americans are better than this. Poignant that we live in a time where that could be so unforgivable.
• richk449 3y ago
  Biden pardons Trump. Outrage mitigated. Base can’t rage. Biden easily wins re-election.
  • uptownfunk 3y ago
    Interesting. This could be a power play for Biden if he can arrange it. The problem is that Biden is unfit to be president even today, what to speak for a second term. He is hanging on by a very thin thread.
  • stuckinhell 3y ago
    One can hope, but doubtful. Braggs ignored many democrats advice on this and went rogue.
  • xpe 3y ago
    Perhaps. There would also be justifiable outrage by reasonable people. Pardoning Trump would continue the example set by Gerald Ford in pardoning Nixon. "Helping the country heal" seems hollow to me. To use a few metaphors: 1. Physical healing can't properly happen until the foreign object is cleared and infection removed from the body. 2. Mental healing doesn't fully happen until person comes to terms with what's happened. Burying the trauma is a risky time-bomb of a "solution". If injustice goes unpunished or unaddressed, victims typically don't have closure. They lose confidence in the rule of law. Some take it into their own hands. Large portions of the American public have been traumatized by Trump's behavior. We are seeking justice. And any temporary comfort from pardoning Trump would be undermined by the uneven application of justice.
    • hrunt 3y ago
      Trump and Nixon are also two very different situations. When Ford pardoned Nixon, Nixon was done with politics. He had no chance of coming back as a politician. If he had not resigned, he was going to be impeached and he was going to be removed from office. There was bipartisan support for his removal. Ford spent his political capital to pardon Nixon and heal the nation, but he also knew that Nixon would not be a factor going forward. The same is not true for Trump today. Even if Biden pardoned Trump, establishment politics would continue to have to deal with him moving forward. He has shown no indication that he would stop attacking everything around him.
• satisfice 3y ago
  It’s about time that there are consequences for a man who took over the USA on a platform of essentially denying that he could ever face consequences. Let the wheels of justice turn.
  • swsdsailor 3y ago
    Which law does that violate?
• uptownfunk 3y ago
  Banks collapse. Weakening of the dollar. Former American president indicted. Plots to pause and inhibit AI technologies development through petition. Never ending rain and gloom on the west coast. School shootings. I am not one for conspiracy but it really does not seem like the tides are moving in the United States favor right now. Why does every day feel like we are getting closer to some kind of tipping point? Into what I don’t know, but I’m hoping we don’t get to a point where there’s no going back. It is hard not to read this as politically motivated. A lot of this crowd tends to lean excessively left, but I would urge you to be aware of the broader geopolitical considerations of what is at hand here.
  • laidoffamazon 3y ago
    It’s because you’re ignorant of history. If anything we are closer to morning in America than anytime since 2000. No new wars, massive advancements in hard tech and AI, and the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. The new American century is being built as we speak by the most brilliant and hardworking humans on the planet, I suggest you not overlook it.
    • uptownfunk 3y ago
      I guess my glass is just half empty
    • operatingthetan 3y ago
      Refreshing optimism, thank you.
• varunjain99 3y ago
  I appreciate that this is not the most clear cut charge against Trump and potentially helps his chances at reelection (theoretically). Anyone else would've been at least indicted as well. This is an indication that the rule of law is prevailing. Even former presidents aren't above the law.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• marcell 3y ago
  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 understanding is that the crime is around how the money was delivered. I'm having trouble finding a good description, but CNN has this to say: > Hush money payments aren't illegal. Prosecutors are weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying the business records of the Trump Organization for how they reflected the reimbursement of the payment to Michael Cohen. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York. > Prosecutors are also weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying business records in the first degree for allegedly falsifying a record with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal another crime, which in this case could be a violation of campaign finance laws. That is a Class E felony, with a sentence minimum of one year and as much as four years. I'm not a lawyer and it's hard to parse the above, but it sounds very technical. It sounds like they have to prove two separate crimes, and connect them with intention. Intent of course is always hard to prove in court. Overall this seems like a weak case to me.
  • wodenokoto 3y ago
    My understanding from legal eagle on YouTube is that the payment was done illegally. Both in terms of taxes and in terms of how you are allowed to spend money on campaigning (she was hushed to aid the presidential campaign)
    • eldritch_4ier 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • watwut 3y ago
        All of that might be objective. Not liking a lot what Republicans do does not mean you are unfairly biased.
      • 3y ago
• it 3y ago
  Oh, this is interesting. By the same reasoning, would a grand jury indict companies who pay former employees they fired not to speak ill of them?
  • sanderjd 3y ago
    No, because that does not violate campaign finance laws.
    • it 3y ago
      Oh I see. I wonder if he will be allowed to settle, as Hillary Clinton's team did for "intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments" with the Steele Dossier. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clinton-democrats-steele-dossier-settle-electoral-case https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clin...
      • sanderjd 3y ago
        I'm sure he'll have a chance to plead guilty.
• Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• ahoya 3y ago
  while i’m not a fan of donald trump, it is chilling to realize that this could happen to any one of us after using campaign funds to make hush money payments to pornstars
  • jspash 3y ago
    personally i'm not worried. i'll just have my lawyer take the fall. the best lawyers my supporters money can buy.
• steve76 3y ago
  [dead]
• janalsncm 3y ago
  Sounds like we will know the specific charges on Tuesday when Trump turns himself in.
  • richrichardsson 3y ago
    I thought I read something that said he stated he won't go quietly or was it just hearsay? I'm curious (as an outsider) about what are the chances his arrest might cause unrest?
    • monetus 3y ago
      Not much coordinated unrest, not immediately at least. His lawyers said he will voluntarily submit for processing, so that won't be the catalyst. January 6th, 2021 had been advertised as the day for many months, by a more cohesive apparatus. Multiple apparati, really. The 6th fractured that, so that even his most ardent supporters are more paranoid about being baited into unrest. If/when the Georgian DA and federal special prosecutor move towards indictments, things may get dicier.
    • d23 3y ago
      He's called for his supporters to protest and posted an image of him swinging a baseball bat at the DA's head while calling him a "Soros backed animal". About the indictment, he called the police the gestapo and said "our country is being destroyed, as they tell us to be peaceful!" He is trying to incite violence.
• adam_arthur 3y ago
  Just going to drop this here, make of it what you will. "By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Cole and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read." https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elect... The truth is you could pin a charge on a large percentage of politicians if you were determined to. There's clearly an element of selective prosecution here, regardless of whether the charge is valid. To make a martyr of Trump over small time crimes is not going to be good for the country in the end.
  • guelo 3y ago
    That issue was resolved when the FEC did an investigation and issued a fine. There was accountability. Why should there be no accountability for Trump?
    • NullInvictus 3y ago
      It’s just Whataboutism. What the DNC did or did not do is entirely irrelevant to the case, because the DNC is not who was standing before the grand jury. “You could pin this on a large percentage of politicians”. Yes, please. It will in fact be good for the country. I don’t care what party they come from.
      • TheHappyOddish 3y ago
        I'm not sure if you're intentionally being selective here, but I'll assume good intent. GP goes on to say: > There's clearly an element of selective prosecution here, regardless of whether the charge is valid. To make a martyr of Trump over small time crimes is not going to be good for the country in the end. Their point is quite specifically _not_ whataboutism. They use another example to point to what they believe to be selective prosecution, not to ask "why not proscute the others who did this?".
• gonzo 3y ago
  The indictment is sealed. Nobody knows what it says, not even Trump his lawyers. Trump and his lawyers might know Tuesday at Trump’s arraignment. CNN Law Enforcement analyst John Miller reported (based on two sources) to Erin Burnett that the indictment has 34 counts relating to falsification of business documents/records.
• auggierose 3y ago
  Pretty weak case. Is this really what they go after Trump for? Not sure this emboldens the belief in the rule of law either way, as this is clearly politically motivated.
  • Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
    > Pretty weak case. How do you know? The charges are sealed. Also there are 34 charges, and 12 people agreed there is substancial evidence to go ahead with the case.
    • auggierose 3y ago
      It's about him paying money to a porn star not to talk about their affair? That's not a crime. Now I can see how they can find some stuff in there to make SOMETHING stick, but if the same kind of scrutiny would be applied in general, 50% of the US population would go to jail. Oh wait, a large percentage of the US population actually IS in jail.
      • Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
        > It's about him paying money to a porn star not to talk about their affair? No. It isn't. > That's not a crime Also not what he did. > Now I can see how they can find some stuff in there to make SOMETHING stick So you called it a weak case. Despite not seeing the 34 charges and severely misunderstanding the basic facts of the situation? Maybe its not a weak case and you just do not know about it? Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen paid 130,000 dollars to a pornstar to hush about sex she had with Trump in 2006 while Melania was pregnant. He did this weeks before the election. This can be considered campaign financing violation, similar to what Clinton did with the Steele Dossier. Despite this, he lied about it, and a number of other charges were discovered. So he pleaded guilty and got a 6 year ruling. During this trial he admitted Trump told him to pay that money, this opened the investigation into Trump's involvement. The first discovery was that Trump had paid Cohen with money from his business to give him back the 130,000$. That is misclassification of business files to commit a crime, which is a felony, the investigation fo said felony opened up a ton of documentation into Trump's finances and business. The DA got access to Trumps taxes in 2020, and after over 2 years of investigation are now presenting 34 charges, all of which the jury found substancial evidence to indict. What started it, a misdemeanor of paying off someone to not make you look bad right before an election, opened up the investigation into the entire trove of potentially illegal business fillings. Some of which appear to be felonies. Lets see when the case is unsealead if it's so weak, but it is not looking good.
• auganov 3y ago
  [flagged]
• atlantic 3y ago
  Watching this play out from abroad, it looks like a political prosecution. Not a good look for the US.
• abbassi 3y ago
  [dead]
• sampa 3y ago
  [flagged]
• pdpi 3y ago
  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 defined as "any payment made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office". Daniels talking about her relationship with Trump is something that could have had a significant impact on Trump's presidential campaign, so paying her to stay quiet is considered a campaign expense. Paying your lawyer for legal advice/representation is not a campaign expense, though, so what happened was that Cohen himself paid Daniels (there's no law against that), and the campaign paid Cohen for "legal expenses" (which aren't considered campaign expenses). The problem here is that, of course, this was just a way to make Cohen an intermediary for the process of the campaign paying Daniels. This is problem in two ways. First, it goes against the campaign spending limits, so goes against campaign laws. Second, it's a form of falsifying business records.
  • NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    I don’t think it was the campaign that paid her, was it? I thought it was just some Trump business entity.
    • pc86 3y ago
      Yes but if the intent was to help or protect the campaign, and Trump's business paid for it (rather than the campaign or Trump personally) it's an illegal campaign donation because it's above the limit.
      • NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        Seems like a pretty thin theory for such an unprecedented case. (I mean. Imagine if the campaign HAD paid for it!) I’m all for accountability and rule of law. But I’d hope the grand jury has something a little bit better than just this.
    • 3y ago
• n0tahacker 3y ago
  [dead]
• deafpolygon 3y ago
  Many interesting posts here. One thing I wonder, is if they're trying to use this case as a precedent for further/additional criminal charges. If you prove one, then the subsequent charges become easier to indict for. Makes making subpoenas easier to request in a court of law.
• realworldperson 3y ago
  [dead]
• n0tahacker 3y ago
  I think the main question is: Why does Trump get indicted and Bush does not? The answer could be: Bush did a crime that supported some of the elite's supposed interests, while Trump demystified the president's role, which is clearly against the interests of "the elite", if you want to call it like that. In my opinion, war crimes are far worse than not declaring hush money correctly, but everybody has their own priorities.
• ChicagoDave 3y ago
  NY grand juries (regular people) do all of the actual work without prompting from the DA. The only thing the DA does is provide witnesses and physical evidence and read the laws relating to the evidence. The grand jury asks all the questions of the witnesses and reviews all the evidence. Then they vote to indict or not in private. The DA asks if they voted and how. They report their votes. At no point is the DA coercing anyone to vote a certain way, which would be illegal. At no point are jurors discussing the case with anyone outside the jury room (also illegal). The rumors are there are dozens of indictments, each one based on evidence and witness testimony. There’s this huge cloud of politicization over this, but the reality is Trump, his attorney, and possibly others committed crimes and this grand jury is holding him accountable. As law-abiding citizens, is this not what we expect and has it not been the foundation of our judicial system for 247 years? Or is a former president simply immune from our laws and judicial processes?
  • ChicagoDave 3y ago
    I suppose the political argument would be that the DA manufactured evidence and coached witnesses what to say in order to “get Trump.” But there are dozens of people involved in a grand jury and there is just no way to manufacture anything without it becoming public knowledge. Someone in the NYC AD office is very likely a Trump voter and they’d never play along. This is just a standard legal process with an extraordinary target.
  • blunder_chess 3y ago
    > As law-abiding citizens, is this not what we expect and has it not been the foundation of our judicial system for 247 years? Not to cut against your point, but just want to clarify that 247 years ago was 1776, which is not when our judicial system was founded. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, wasn't ratified until 1781 and did not include a judiciary. The second constitution, which created the judicial branch, didn't go into effect until March 4, 1789. Subsequently, the judicial system was established by the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789.
    • ChicagoDave 3y ago
• fredgrott 3y ago
  Something interesting, number of corrupt US presidents: GOP Warren Warding, Teapot OIL reserve scandal Richard Nixon, Watergate which was funded by illegal Corp political funds which were money laundered through Mexican banks Donald Trump, Alledged money laundering to fund hush money to porn star, alledge russian money in Apartment sales via Netherlands anonyomous corps, etc. I cannot seem to find any factual stuff on corrupt Democratic Presidents, aha aha while the Electoral College act was inspired by the Civil War events including the only time Democrats attempted voter fraud none of the elected Democrat presidents were involved in that effort.
• thecleaner 3y ago
  I think this post should be removed now that most people have had a chance to see it or atleast discussion should be stopped. HN shouldn't be a political platform.
• aww_dang 3y ago
  I'm generally cynical about party politics, but this takes the cake. Perhaps if other recent elites were prosecuted for lying the United States into wars or openly advocating for torture, I would have a bit more patience for prosecuting Trump's bad bedroom behavior. I am reminded of Clinton's Lewinsky scandal. Although I was very young at the time, it seemed so trivial in comparison to the magnitude of the office. The next administration went on to destabilize the Middle East under false pretenses. Where was the equivalent outrage for, "Lying to congress" ? The president is largely a figurehead and a politician foremost. There's nothing honest or reputable about the profession. They could be uncharitably described as professional liars. Their sexual peccadilloes are of no interest to me. The obsession with their bedroom activities seems totally dysfunctional. These people should not be idolized or presented as a standard of behavior in any regard, much less for their sex lives. Hard not to see this as yet another "The Emperor Has No Clothes" moment for party politics and US democracy. Outstanding issues remain, such as the existing wars, new wars and serious economic issues. Given this context, under what standard is it relevant how Mr. Trump paid a sex worker? I wish the best for the US and the world at large, but this is just insane. For those somnambulists who are under the influence of this illusion, for those who think this is a rational endeavor which is not symptomatic of a much larger dysfunction - Please, I implore you to take a step back and examine the bigger picture. Consider a brief glance in the mirror as well.
• noduerme 3y ago
  I think this is unfortunate because it cheapens American democracy even further in the eyes of adversaries who want nothing more than to mock us on the world stage. Whatever your view of the balance between the need to enforce laws vs. keeping national politics out of law enforcement: From a foreign policy point of view, it's a catastrophe. There are three classes of countries, as I see it, that indict or jail leaders out-of-power in the opposition. (1) dictatorships like Myanmar (2) quasi-dictatorships acting under a veil of democracy, like Brazil (3) places on the brink of civil rupture, like Israel. To say that this was intended by the Constitution of a breakaway American Republic is mad, because no sane English colonist would have chosen to renounce the crown if they'd known an idiot like Donald J Trump would be President 200 years later. Of course power should be held to account! As many people here have said, Presidents that committed war crimes would be a better target for prosecution. Or Trump's own crimes in office would be. This prosecution under these auspices and for these reasons places us (Americans) squarely in the realm of third world semi-democracies. I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but I hope Joe Biden will be wise enough to immediately issue Trump a pardon and bring this to a close. If Trump is indicted again for something serious, like insurrection, that would be a different matter. It's not possible to divide politics from law in a case where the defendant has a rabid political following and was the President of the country (as insane as that seems). Biden needs to pardon him right away.
  • aww_dang 3y ago
    >...no sane English colonist would have chosen to renounce the crown... Consider that while the rate of economic productivity was much lower during the colonial era, the average rate of tax was between 1% and 1.5%. I have seen figures quoted as high as 3%. For this, a revolution was mounted. The indignation of being taxed by parliament (not the crown) without a chance to vote compelled colonists to take up arms. Contrast this to today's general apathy towards the political process, low voter turnout, higher rates of taxation and unending regulation of citizens' lives. https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-today/early-american-economics-facts/#:~:text=The%20average%20tax%20rate%20in%20colonial%20America%20was%20between%201%20and%201.5%25 https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-... South Korea also has a history of jailing leaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye#Arrest,_detention,_pardon_and_post-presidency_(2017%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye#Arrest,_detentio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Myung-bak#Controversies_and_issues:~:text=.%5B142%5D-,Detention,-%5Bedit%5D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Myung-bak#Controversies_an...
• sfmike 3y ago
  agnostic non political comment based on logic: Possible the arrest comes to thwart presidential nomination?
• Blackstrat 3y ago
  1. The FEC/DOJ elected not to pursue the case in 2018. 2. Cohen's attorneys produced a letter saying Cohen was not reimbursed for the $130K 3. Stormy Daniels attorneys produced a letter denying that an affair ever occurred. 4. North Carolina failed to convict John Edwards in 2012 of a similar charge, though with actual campaign funds. 5. Bill Clinton settled Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit in 1998, while a president for $850K. 6. Law professors from Turley, Desrchowitz, both liberals, have stated there's no case here. 7. Bragg himself had previously declined to pursue these charges. 8. Bragg routinely does not pursue charges against major crimes. 9. Hillary Clinton, Joe & Hunter Biden and a host of other shady political figures have not been indicted and in some cases, not even investigated for far more serious offenses. 10. This confirms in the mind of Trump supporters as well as to the average man on the street that there are two systems of justice, one for the left and one for the rest. 11. This will not end well for Bragg nor the country. It's bound to ignite a response from Republican AGs in some states. Welcome to the mess created by the democrat party and there Big Tech/media axis.
  • Blackstrat 3y ago
    I find it humorous how a simple list of factual statements can be down voted by some people here.
    • gaganyaan 3y ago
      You're spreading misinformation, that's why. One easy google search away: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-stormy-daniels-2018-statement-denial-trump-affair-066388509688 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-stormy-daniels-2018-st... > AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The signed statement with the denial was publicly released on Jan. 30, 2018. Not long after, Daniels recanted the statement and said that an affair had occurred. She said her denials were due to a non-disclosure agreement and that she signed the statement because parties involved “made it sound like I had no choice.” And yes, misinformation includes statements that are technically true by themselves, but intentionally leave out crucial details to create a narrative.
      • 3y ago
• pc_edwin 3y ago
  You would think a topic like this would be somewhat lower ranked in a tech-oriented forum but it seems even those of us who are technically inclined cant evade the pull of politics. As side note, heres my 2 cents: This is extremely dangerous and unprecedented. Its a long standing practice common law tradition to refrain from prosecuting political leaders unless a serious crime is involved (Prosecutorial discretion). Ignore Trump, he'll likely win or worse-case get a misdemeanour. This just changed the whole game, the judicial branch just got weaponised as political tool. Unless somebody puts a conclusive stop to this nonsense, things are about to get very ugly. This is the kind of thing you see from third world countries with corrupt/unstable institutions.
  • SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    The alternative take here is that this is saying no one is above the law. That ISN'T the sort of thing you see in corrupt/unstable institutions. A lot of Americans seem super comfortable with the idea that their leaders and aristocrats aren't supposed to be subject to the law. This may be one of those times that there's actually enough of a case that judicial branch feels it can take a shot at one of their betters and actually hit. We won't know until things are unsealed.
    • pc_edwin 3y ago
      With all due respect, I'm of the opinion that the alternative here is the weaponisation of the judicial branch. Most commenters on this post has knowingly or unknowingly broken the law multiple times in their lives. As the Buffet saying goes: "If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you’re going to get a ticket." Buffet said this in relation to JP Morgan's "London Whale" scandal. Whats interesting here is he went on further to say: "You can’t be active in a big business without making some mistakes, and sometimes they may be big ones". This is especially true for government. For example, something as simple and normal as taking some work docs home or discussing work with a spouse could lead to breaking serious federal laws. Clinton's private email server is a perfect example of this, she committed a clear crime here but Comey chose to not prosecute. Despite this decision, he faced heavy scrutiny for delaying the decision which many believe had an impact on the outcome of the election. It is important to take note of my earlier point, this is not a debate on whether leaders and "aristocrats" should be subject to the law. We are witnessing a departure from practices established centuries ago in common law tradition.
• swayvil 3y ago
  It's like handing out speeding tickets at a racetrack.
• mylittlebrain 3y ago
  The only news we have is that the indictment consists of more than 30 counts related to business fraud. The exact list has not been released yet. So, speculating is pointless.
• hiidrew 3y ago
  Biden should pardon him if he gets convicted. Would do wonders for the unity of our country.
  • gonzo 3y ago
    Biden can’t pardon state crimes
  • h4ch1 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • HDThoreaun 3y ago
      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.
      • h4ch1 3y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14OK8_Cpiz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14OK8_Cpiz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bWM1zsnTJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bWM1zsnTJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssNav3MnBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssNav3MnBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_59agcnLAj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_59agcnLAj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIxP-c83ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIxP-c83ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFNyWYcVpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFNyWYcVpc https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zhnUE5UBufw 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 said. This man holds the highest office in the worlds most powerful democracy, and it really does instill fear and mistrust in his ability and mental acuity. I am not pulling this out of my ass, I am not American, neither do I really care about Trump, was just saying what videographic evidence clearly points to.
        • HDThoreaun 3y ago
          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.
• dougSF70 3y ago
  Perhaps this is a concerted, organized legal strategy that Georgia, NYC and the Feds have organized.
• greenhearth 3y ago
  No surprise that the amount of ignorance in this thread is breathtaking.
  • gonzo 3y ago
    HN > Reddit > Twitter > FB > ...