15 ms·

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 f

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.

walrus01 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      Greece and Turkey have been credibly threatening each other for decades.
  - chii 4y ago
    Which is really why this international criminal court has no real meaning - only the winner in a conflict gets to also win in the court. For example, do you really think that by charging putin, that he'd really get arrested in participating countries? Or would the warrant be ignored? And if putin does lose his war, and goes into exile, the ICC warrants would then be possible to enforce (now that no nukes is on the line). But putin knows this, so if the war goes badly, would it not make better sense to fight it out to the bitter end, rather than lose out to being arrested if he goes on exile? The court that has no enforcement mechanism is mostly just political show boating.
    - walrus01 4y ago
      There is the slim possibility that if the war goes very badly a small group of very senior Russian generals arrange to capture Putin, depose him, put themselves in place as some sort of junta, remove russian ground forces from Ukraine, and hand him over to the ICC to repair Russia's relationship with the rest of the world.
      - vasac 4y ago
        Yeah, except the West isn't equal to the world and chances of Russian generals handing Putin to ICC are the same as US generals delivering Bush or Obama to the ICC.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        This is misunderstanding how Russia works - Russia is not a military dictatorship, it's a security services dictatorship. The Military in Russia is a low-status organisation and it is not capable of doing anyrhing in internal politics. They commonly end up on the recieving end of racketeering by low-level gangs. Yes, people that drive tanks and fire missiles pay 'taxes' to bandits armed with pistols. Putin was sending generals to their deaths without worry. Various internal police forces have a higher chance of removing FSB from power than the military does. If thongs get bad enough, thats not impossible.
        pyuser583 4y ago
  - cge 4y ago
    You're thinking of the American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... The Hague invasion aspect, and Hague Invasion Act nickname, are perhaps largely symbolic; the less symbolic effects are that it prohibits any part of government in the US from assisting the ICC except in limited circumstances, and bans ICC agents from doing any investigative work in the US.
    - derefr 4y ago
      > bans ICC agents from doing any investigative work in the US. Doesn't this make the US a safe haven for other countries' war criminals? You'd think the rule would be that there will be no support for ICC agents investigating US citizens.
      - cge 4y ago
        The US relationship with the ICC has been quite variable. The law was passed in 2002, though it does provide for specific exemptions for specifically-named foreigners. Likewise, in 2020, the US had executive orders outright freezing ICC officials' assets, sanctioning them with OFAC, and banning them and their family members from entering the US (these were removed in 2021). At other times, the US has been somewhat supportive, if not to the extent of modifying the law or recognizing the court.
        pyuser583 4y ago
        The US loves ICC, as long as it doesn’t apply to us. Most of its prosecutions would be impossible without US help.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Bullshit. The Netherlands are a NATO member.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  I think it’s rare for individuals in extreme-stress jobs like the SoS position he held to live much past 70. I have to guess that everyone who cared about charging him thought that it would be a waste of time, energy, and money based on his age for the last 30 years.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    It's more than that or people wouldn't be charging 90+ year olds who were concentration camp prison guards in their teens and early 20s.
    - th17row 4y ago
      [flagged]
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  [flagged]
- pyuser583 4y ago
  He’s also politically active - supporting conservative organizations in various ways.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
koolba 4y ago
Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worthy of charging here? The point of a fair justice system is not to charge a specific someone with something, it’s to go after a specific crime. The legal gymnastics this DA is jumping through to attach charges here makes a joke of the entire justice system. I won’t be surprise if Bragg is disbarred for this.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  It seems wild to make this argument before the indictment has been unsealed. Shouldn’t we wait to see the allegations before we declare them baseless?
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    Apparently 34 charges.
    - koolba 4y ago
      The sheer number of baseless charges does not grant additional weight to any of them individually.
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        But… the charges haven’t been released yet? How do you already know they’re baseless? Like, it’s crazy to me that anyone would assert that the charges are baseless or that they’re solid before the charges have even been announced. How do you know they’re baseless? I agree that the number of charges doesn’t make a point one way or another, about the strength of the charges.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        And yet, NYT is somehow allowed to speculate on what those are without knowing them. I am sure you will agree that the same should extent to mere posters here.
aaronbrethorst 4y ago
Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
- photonbeam 4y ago
  Seems problematic for compatibility with US Constitution though
- plandis 4y ago
  I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States. Not a great look.
    - dogma1138 4y ago
      “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Which is all fine and good until you go committing war crimes on foreign soil in regions that may not have proper legal frameworks. Committing war crimes in Iraq for instance. Which is kind of where the whole ICC thing comes into play - it's not really for like, speeding tickets. The US had the opportunity during development of the framework to engage and ensure all the other terms could be fairly met. Note that the text you quoted was also an amendment to what was meant to be a living document, albeit long since ossified.
eru 4y ago
> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I thought the point of the US was to allow the president to do some sweet real estate deals? From https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html > His stories about George Washington, none of which I knew, are even more fascinating. Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. Remember that the 'Royal Proclamation of 1763' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 : > The Proclamation forbade all settlements west of a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains, which was delineated as an Indian Reserve.[2] Exclusion from the vast region of Trans-Appalachia created discontent between Britain and colonial land speculators and potential settlers. The proclamation and access to western lands was one of the first significant areas of dispute between Britain and the colonies and would become a contributing factor leading to the American Revolution.[3] > British colonists and land speculators objected to the proclamation boundary since the British government had already assigned land grants to them. Including the wealthy owners of the Ohio company who protested the line to the governor of Virginia, as they had plans for settling the land to grow business.[15] Many settlements already existed beyond the proclamation line,[16] some of which had been temporarily evacuated during Pontiac's War, and there were many already granted land claims yet to be settled. For example, George Washington and his Virginia soldiers had been granted lands past the boundary. Prominent American colonials joined with the land speculators in Britain to lobby the government to move the line further west. More context from https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html > [...] his story made me realize that a large part of my belief in GW is romantic: because I learned about him so early in life, that romantic view is harder to shake and I’ve been less willing to put GW under the public choice microscope than with any current or recent president. > An excerpt about GW’s wealth: >> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution. > Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. The Brits already had that system in place, so no need to secede because of that. Yes, the King was above the law, but he was a figurehead and by the time of the colonials' insubordination the country was already run by parliament and Prime Minister.
fsckboy 4y ago
> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I think that's overstated. First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king". Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, so there is at least a substantial idea that there is some "sovereign immunity" (quotes because that's not what sovereign immunity refers to) Third, the founders were also well aware of the threat of political motives for prosecutions and wanted to diminish them with various balance of power checks and balances.
- dmix 4y ago
  This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour before/after presidency when the stakes are far lower.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    Doesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?
    - norwalkbear 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - gaganyaan 4y ago
        I almost wish HN had emoji reactions for comments. Upvote/downvote doesn't quite cut it when what this comment really needs is just an eyeroll emoji, possibly paired with "OK Boomer".
gfodor 4y ago
An indictment doesn’t say much about if this is an example of the law applying to a political leader.
WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
Just need a mental gut check after reading this comment. Do people not think this is political?
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  [flagged]
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  When it comes to Trump, people seem to be blind to the effects of soft power. Trump is beloved by his base in a way no other president in the last 100 years is. The danger of this half-assed prosecution to the republic is fucking enormous, I'm actually scared.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Trump's "base" doesn't particularly matter. They'll continue on in denial/spite regardless of what happens. The damage they themselves can do is limited, as long as we have functioning law enforcement. The only way we're getting out of the larger situation is for Republicans and independents to realize that Trump is/was just another basic grifter capitalizing on frustration with the system. Just because someone is despised by the people at the country club doesn't mean they're your friend. While we're hungry for reform, this doesn't mean that every type of change is a step in the right direction. And despite the suffocating dynamic, there's actually a damn good reason we've come to expect that politicians should be a bit neutered. Ultimately true conservatism for the American status quo that we've come to take for granted, as much as it pains my past self to write that.
    - trafficante 4y ago
      Trump’s base scares the hell out of DC for very good reason. “Jan 6th but an actual insurrection with guns and political/military leaders” Or “Southwestern sheriff decides to expel illegal immigrants on his own, requests ‘MAGA patriots’ to come on down and get deputized, atrocities ensue, feds get involved and it spirals into a state vs federal fiasco (which sounds fanfic but Abbott and DeSantis are clearly sympathetic to the idea)” I honestly think that the second scenario or at least another Malheur Wildlife Refuge/Waco style standoff is only a matter of time - and judging by DoJ’s public priorities, they’re extremely concerned about it as well.
webdood90 4y ago
I'm 100% in support of applying the law to all people. What I don't love is the timing of it. It makes it easily dismissible as political theatre. Wait until after the election.
- jagraff 4y ago
  They can’t - the statute of limitations will have run out by then (there’s an argument that Trump will make that it has run out already).
  - shagie 4y ago
    From Trump v. Vance; Justice Alito in the dissenting opinion: > ... And the district attorney should set out why he finds it necessary that the records be produced now as opposed to when the President leaves office. At argument, respondent’s counsel told us that his office’s concern is the expiration of the statute of limitations,11 but there are potential solutions to that problem. Even if New York law does not automatically suspend the statute of limitations for prosecuting a President until he leaves office,12 it may be possible to eliminate the problem by waiver.13 And if the prosecutor’s statute-of-limitations concerns relate to parties other than the President, he should be required to spell that out. > ... > 12: See N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §30.10(4)(a) (West 2010) (statute tolled when defendant outside the jurisdiction); see also People v. Knobel, 94 N. Y. 2d 226, 230, 723 N. E. 2d 550, 552 (1999) (explaining New York rule for tolling the limitations period when a defendant is “continuously outside” the State and concluding that “all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations”).
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Many Americans see themselves as rebels. Funny thing is many of the most vociferous so-called rebels are nothing more than bullies and aggressors. People who already hold most of the power, and are "rebelling" only at the fact that their victims are starting to struggle a bit under their grip. There's nothing "rebellious" about being a wealthy real estate baron and casino owner. And nothing "rebellious" about supporting him, either. It's rather, kind of the opposite.
EGreg 4y ago
At the same time there is a different dimension to jailing political leaders, which is why Nixon was pardoned. In countries like Ukraine and Georgia, they have recently jailed their presidents or opponents. Yanukovich jailed Timushenko. Saakashvili was jailed. This can wreak a lot of havoc in a country. Look at how the supporters of Imran Khan are reacting, as his opponents always try to arrest him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Imran_Khan_arrest_attempts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Imran_Khan_arrest_attem...
- jltsiren 4y ago
  > At the same time there is a different dimension to jailing political leaders, which is why Nixon was pardoned. Nixon was pardoned, but he also resigned and quit politics. Political leaders are easy to replace, which means that the bar for replacing them should be low. If a leader is accused with crimes and the charges seem plausible enough, they are expected to resign to avoid a divisive trial. Similarly, unless the charges are particularly serious, the other side is expected to pardon the accused. Then the former leader is expected to quit politics and stop being a problem. This all happens, because political leaders are supposed to care about national interests. Granting a disgraced leader a dignified exit and a chance for a peaceful retirement is often a good idea, as long as the former leader agrees to remain a former leader. On the other hand, pardoning active politicians is about as bad idea as anything can be. That way you get entitled leaders who consider themselves above the law.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely asking. I really have no dog in this race/don't care, just find it interesting.
- behringer 4y ago
  Why did they only get capone on tax evasion?
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    Think about how much investigations through government agencies have changed since 1930?
    - behringer 4y ago
      Considering we still regularly still do lie detector tests, dog searches, entrapments, confessions under duress or even torture, I would say we haven't changed as much as you think.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    That was also an outrageous and silly charge and representative a failure of the legal system to live up to its ideals of process and fairness. It wasn't especially political though, because by and large there is consensus that being a gangster should be illegal and that Capone was probably a gangster. Attempting to take a popular political figure out by blatant abuse of the legal abuse is a bit more concerning.
    - piva00 4y ago
      Popular political figures aren't above the law, they aren't special because they are popular. I don't believe that popularity should be in any way a consideration to put someone up for a trial after they break the law.
norwalkbear 4y ago
[flagged]
- stanleydrew 4y ago
  To make this claim you have to argue that the indictment is illegitimate. And I suppose there are a lot of people who will make that claim. Presumably the reason Obama, Bush and Clinton won't be charged with crimes is that there isn't enough evidence that they committed any crimes for a prosecutor to seek an indictment.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    The NY Times called the case an "untested legal theory" and said "it is not easy to point to a direct precedent for the case Mr. Bragg appears to be contemplating". IMO any case made against a DA's political opponents should rest on solid ground, not untested legal theories. It's disturbing that so many people are willing to throw away the legal system in order to prosecute someone they don't like.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > The NY Times called the case an "untested legal theory" and said "it is not easy to point to a direct precedent for the case Mr. Bragg appears to be contemplating". > IMO any case made against a DA's political opponents should rest on solid ground, not untested legal theories. Exactly. It's an even bigger violation of the principle that "the law should apply to political leaders" to abuse the law in order to prosecute one. I'm no fan of Trump, but any case against him should be strong, not something so weird that an acrobat would have trouble jumping through all the hoops. Unfortunately, Trump broke America, including his opponents, and now they're out for blood and are willing to go as low or even lower than him to get it.
  - junofan 4y ago
    Why? Prosecutors have discretion. Doesn’t mean the indictment is illegitimate.
kazinator 4y ago
I'm pretty sure I could pay hush money to a porn star and nothing would come of it, even if I blogged about it incessantly to get attention.
- lokar 4y ago
  Paying hush money is not a crime and no one is claiming it is.
seizethecheese 4y ago
The reason nobody should be above the law is because it’s important for our sense that the law is impartial. This is also why it’s important to not use the law as a political tool. Otherwise trust in the law is undermined.
ck2 4y ago
If they don't serve a day in prison does it matter or is it just fodder for the masses? Plenty of governors have been put in prison but an ex-president is going to have secret service, even in prison? This is a crime another person served time for so it's definitely a crime worthy of prison but of all the crimes, this is so damn stupid in comparison. I'd settle for CEOs and Bankers going to prison for all the crimes they have gotten away with on a daily basis than even one president as despised as they are.
xwdv 4y ago
Yes. I’m pretty sure Obama should have to answer for the drone executions he ordered (some which were even American citizens, which seems very illegal).
- guelo 4y ago
  I'm down with it. Though the executive exercising war powers seems as far as possible from a non-president commiting state-level fraud.
rufus_foreman 4y 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"
nebula8804 4y ago
I wonder if all the innocent people killed in the US's overseas wars will get justice or their families get reparations. There seems like such a long list of justice that has yet to be delivered that makes me ponder if this is the beginning of an avalanche of change or just a small bump on a slow moving boulder. If its the former, that bodes really well for humanity but if its the latter then I am not sure how much this event will do to slow the continued erosion of institutions here and worldwide.
concordDance 4y ago
While it would be great to actually charge former US presidents for what they've done (Bush and Obama war crimes anyone?), politically motivated selective prosecutions are extremely corrosive. And that's what campaign finance charges (not specifically Trump ones) look like to this non-American. Honestly, what the US campaign financing system needs is a full overhaul, its full of legal and illegal-but-ignored corruption.
bobsil1 4y ago
The opposite — the US constitution is more like a slaver bill of rights, rife with plantation oligarch backdoors. The checks and balances are akin to NBA owners negotiating how not to ruin each other. Those rights originally were only extended to white men formally, and only rich white men in effect.
jeffrallen 4y ago
And Secretaries of State. Looking at you H.K.
guilhas 4y ago
That would be great, if it was a relevant crime. Which is there is plenty in need of investigation among US politicians. This is a big show about an ex-President stealing the Whitehouse pencils

walrus01 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    Greece and Turkey have been credibly threatening each other for decades.
- chii 4y ago
  Which is really why this international criminal court has no real meaning - only the winner in a conflict gets to also win in the court. For example, do you really think that by charging putin, that he'd really get arrested in participating countries? Or would the warrant be ignored? And if putin does lose his war, and goes into exile, the ICC warrants would then be possible to enforce (now that no nukes is on the line). But putin knows this, so if the war goes badly, would it not make better sense to fight it out to the bitter end, rather than lose out to being arrested if he goes on exile? The court that has no enforcement mechanism is mostly just political show boating.
  - walrus01 4y ago
    There is the slim possibility that if the war goes very badly a small group of very senior Russian generals arrange to capture Putin, depose him, put themselves in place as some sort of junta, remove russian ground forces from Ukraine, and hand him over to the ICC to repair Russia's relationship with the rest of the world.
    - vasac 4y ago
      Yeah, except the West isn't equal to the world and chances of Russian generals handing Putin to ICC are the same as US generals delivering Bush or Obama to the ICC.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      This is misunderstanding how Russia works - Russia is not a military dictatorship, it's a security services dictatorship. The Military in Russia is a low-status organisation and it is not capable of doing anyrhing in internal politics. They commonly end up on the recieving end of racketeering by low-level gangs. Yes, people that drive tanks and fire missiles pay 'taxes' to bandits armed with pistols. Putin was sending generals to their deaths without worry. Various internal police forces have a higher chance of removing FSB from power than the military does. If thongs get bad enough, thats not impossible.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
- cge 4y ago
  You're thinking of the American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... The Hague invasion aspect, and Hague Invasion Act nickname, are perhaps largely symbolic; the less symbolic effects are that it prohibits any part of government in the US from assisting the ICC except in limited circumstances, and bans ICC agents from doing any investigative work in the US.
  - derefr 4y ago
    > bans ICC agents from doing any investigative work in the US. Doesn't this make the US a safe haven for other countries' war criminals? You'd think the rule would be that there will be no support for ICC agents investigating US citizens.
    - cge 4y ago
      The US relationship with the ICC has been quite variable. The law was passed in 2002, though it does provide for specific exemptions for specifically-named foreigners. Likewise, in 2020, the US had executive orders outright freezing ICC officials' assets, sanctioning them with OFAC, and banning them and their family members from entering the US (these were removed in 2021). At other times, the US has been somewhat supportive, if not to the extent of modifying the law or recognizing the court.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        The US loves ICC, as long as it doesn’t apply to us. Most of its prosecutions would be impossible without US help.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Bullshit. The Netherlands are a NATO member.
jimbob45 4y ago
I think it’s rare for individuals in extreme-stress jobs like the SoS position he held to live much past 70. I have to guess that everyone who cared about charging him thought that it would be a waste of time, energy, and money based on his age for the last 30 years.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  It's more than that or people wouldn't be charging 90+ year olds who were concentration camp prison guards in their teens and early 20s.
  - th17row 4y ago
    [flagged]
norwalkbear 4y ago
[flagged]
pyuser583 4y ago
He’s also politically active - supporting conservative organizations in various ways.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

koolba 4y ago

Sure if there’s an actual crime, but what exactly is worthy of charging here? The point of a fair justice system is not to charge a specific someone with something, it’s to go after a specific crime. The legal gymnastics this DA is jumping through to attach charges here makes a joke of the entire justice system. I won’t be surprise if Bragg is disbarred for this.

ncallaway 4y ago
It seems wild to make this argument before the indictment has been unsealed. Shouldn’t we wait to see the allegations before we declare them baseless?
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Apparently 34 charges.
  - koolba 4y ago
    The sheer number of baseless charges does not grant additional weight to any of them individually.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      But… the charges haven’t been released yet? How do you already know they’re baseless? Like, it’s crazy to me that anyone would assert that the charges are baseless or that they’re solid before the charges have even been announced. How do you know they’re baseless? I agree that the number of charges doesn’t make a point one way or another, about the strength of the charges.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        And yet, NYT is somehow allowed to speculate on what those are without knowing them. I am sure you will agree that the same should extent to mere posters here.

aaronbrethorst 4y ago

Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

photonbeam 4y ago
Seems problematic for compatibility with US Constitution though
plandis 4y ago
I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States. Not a great look.
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Which is all fine and good until you go committing war crimes on foreign soil in regions that may not have proper legal frameworks. Committing war crimes in Iraq for instance. Which is kind of where the whole ICC thing comes into play - it's not really for like, speeding tickets. The US had the opportunity during development of the framework to engage and ensure all the other terms could be fairly met. Note that the text you quoted was also an amendment to what was meant to be a living document, albeit long since ossified.

eru 4y ago

> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I thought the point of the US was to allow the president to do some sweet real estate deals? From https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html > His stories about George Washington, none of which I knew, are even more fascinating. Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. Remember that the 'Royal Proclamation of 1763' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 : > The Proclamation forbade all settlements west of a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains, which was delineated as an Indian Reserve.[2] Exclusion from the vast region of Trans-Appalachia created discontent between Britain and colonial land speculators and potential settlers. The proclamation and access to western lands was one of the first significant areas of dispute between Britain and the colonies and would become a contributing factor leading to the American Revolution.[3] > British colonists and land speculators objected to the proclamation boundary since the British government had already assigned land grants to them. Including the wealthy owners of the Ohio company who protested the line to the governor of Virginia, as they had plans for settling the land to grow business.[15] Many settlements already existed beyond the proclamation line,[16] some of which had been temporarily evacuated during Pontiac's War, and there were many already granted land claims yet to be settled. For example, George Washington and his Virginia soldiers had been granted lands past the boundary. Prominent American colonials joined with the land speculators in Britain to lobby the government to move the line further west. More context from https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html > [...] his story made me realize that a large part of my belief in GW is romantic: because I learned about him so early in life, that romantic view is harder to shake and I’ve been less willing to put GW under the public choice microscope than with any current or recent president. > An excerpt about GW’s wealth: >> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution. > Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. The Brits already had that system in place, so no need to secede because of that. Yes, the King was above the law, but he was a figurehead and by the time of the colonials' insubordination the country was already run by parliament and Prime Minister.

fsckboy 4y ago

> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. I think that's overstated. First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king". Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, so there is at least a substantial idea that there is some "sovereign immunity" (quotes because that's not what sovereign immunity refers to) Third, the founders were also well aware of the threat of political motives for prosecutions and wanted to diminish them with various balance of power checks and balances.

dmix 4y ago
This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent. The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be. This is behaviour before/after presidency when the stakes are far lower.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  Doesn't that just give over power to prosecutors to pick who you get to vote for?
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - gaganyaan 4y ago
      I almost wish HN had emoji reactions for comments. Upvote/downvote doesn't quite cut it when what this comment really needs is just an eyeroll emoji, possibly paired with "OK Boomer".

gfodor 4y ago

An indictment doesn’t say much about if this is an example of the law applying to a political leader.

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago

Just need a mental gut check after reading this comment. Do people not think this is political?

norwalkbear 4y ago
[flagged]
stuckinhell 4y ago
When it comes to Trump, people seem to be blind to the effects of soft power. Trump is beloved by his base in a way no other president in the last 100 years is. The danger of this half-assed prosecution to the republic is fucking enormous, I'm actually scared.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Trump's "base" doesn't particularly matter. They'll continue on in denial/spite regardless of what happens. The damage they themselves can do is limited, as long as we have functioning law enforcement. The only way we're getting out of the larger situation is for Republicans and independents to realize that Trump is/was just another basic grifter capitalizing on frustration with the system. Just because someone is despised by the people at the country club doesn't mean they're your friend. While we're hungry for reform, this doesn't mean that every type of change is a step in the right direction. And despite the suffocating dynamic, there's actually a damn good reason we've come to expect that politicians should be a bit neutered. Ultimately true conservatism for the American status quo that we've come to take for granted, as much as it pains my past self to write that.
  - trafficante 4y ago
    Trump’s base scares the hell out of DC for very good reason. “Jan 6th but an actual insurrection with guns and political/military leaders” Or “Southwestern sheriff decides to expel illegal immigrants on his own, requests ‘MAGA patriots’ to come on down and get deputized, atrocities ensue, feds get involved and it spirals into a state vs federal fiasco (which sounds fanfic but Abbott and DeSantis are clearly sympathetic to the idea)” I honestly think that the second scenario or at least another Malheur Wildlife Refuge/Waco style standoff is only a matter of time - and judging by DoJ’s public priorities, they’re extremely concerned about it as well.

webdood90 4y ago

I'm 100% in support of applying the law to all people. What I don't love is the timing of it. It makes it easily dismissible as political theatre. Wait until after the election.

jagraff 4y ago
They can’t - the statute of limitations will have run out by then (there’s an argument that Trump will make that it has run out already).
- shagie 4y ago
  From Trump v. Vance; Justice Alito in the dissenting opinion: > ... And the district attorney should set out why he finds it necessary that the records be produced now as opposed to when the President leaves office. At argument, respondent’s counsel told us that his office’s concern is the expiration of the statute of limitations,11 but there are potential solutions to that problem. Even if New York law does not automatically suspend the statute of limitations for prosecuting a President until he leaves office,12 it may be possible to eliminate the problem by waiver.13 And if the prosecutor’s statute-of-limitations concerns relate to parties other than the President, he should be required to spell that out. > ... > 12: See N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §30.10(4)(a) (West 2010) (statute tolled when defendant outside the jurisdiction); see also People v. Knobel, 94 N. Y. 2d 226, 230, 723 N. E. 2d 550, 552 (1999) (explaining New York rule for tolling the limitations period when a defendant is “continuously outside” the State and concluding that “all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations”).
norwalkbear 4y ago
[flagged]
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Many Americans see themselves as rebels. Funny thing is many of the most vociferous so-called rebels are nothing more than bullies and aggressors. People who already hold most of the power, and are "rebelling" only at the fact that their victims are starting to struggle a bit under their grip. There's nothing "rebellious" about being a wealthy real estate baron and casino owner. And nothing "rebellious" about supporting him, either. It's rather, kind of the opposite.

EGreg 4y ago

At the same time there is a different dimension to jailing political leaders, which is why Nixon was pardoned. In countries like Ukraine and Georgia, they have recently jailed their presidents or opponents. Yanukovich jailed Timushenko. Saakashvili was jailed. This can wreak a lot of havoc in a country. Look at how the supporters of Imran Khan are reacting, as his opponents always try to arrest him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Imran_Khan_arrest_attempts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Imran_Khan_arrest_attem...

jltsiren 4y ago
> At the same time there is a different dimension to jailing political leaders, which is why Nixon was pardoned. Nixon was pardoned, but he also resigned and quit politics. Political leaders are easy to replace, which means that the bar for replacing them should be low. If a leader is accused with crimes and the charges seem plausible enough, they are expected to resign to avoid a divisive trial. Similarly, unless the charges are particularly serious, the other side is expected to pardon the accused. Then the former leader is expected to quit politics and stop being a problem. This all happens, because political leaders are supposed to care about national interests. Granting a disgraced leader a dignified exit and a chance for a peaceful retirement is often a good idea, as long as the former leader agrees to remain a former leader. On the other hand, pardoning active politicians is about as bad idea as anything can be. That way you get entitled leaders who consider themselves above the law.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

It's kind of interesting because, according to a lot of other people (whether they are speaking factually or in an opinionated fashion), Trump has managed to avoid a lot of laws (inciting an insurrection, etc.). Why is this hush money thing the biggest law a Grand jury is able to stick on him? If he's supposedly guilty for so many other things, why is this all he's been indicted on the past few years? Genuinely asking. I really have no dog in this race/don't care, just find it interesting.

behringer 4y ago
Why did they only get capone on tax evasion?
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  Think about how much investigations through government agencies have changed since 1930?
  - behringer 4y ago
    Considering we still regularly still do lie detector tests, dog searches, entrapments, confessions under duress or even torture, I would say we haven't changed as much as you think.
- roenxi 4y ago
  That was also an outrageous and silly charge and representative a failure of the legal system to live up to its ideals of process and fairness. It wasn't especially political though, because by and large there is consensus that being a gangster should be illegal and that Capone was probably a gangster. Attempting to take a popular political figure out by blatant abuse of the legal abuse is a bit more concerning.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Popular political figures aren't above the law, they aren't special because they are popular. I don't believe that popularity should be in any way a consideration to put someone up for a trial after they break the law.

norwalkbear 4y ago

[flagged]

stanleydrew 4y ago
To make this claim you have to argue that the indictment is illegitimate. And I suppose there are a lot of people who will make that claim. Presumably the reason Obama, Bush and Clinton won't be charged with crimes is that there isn't enough evidence that they committed any crimes for a prosecutor to seek an indictment.
- leereeves 4y ago
  The NY Times called the case an "untested legal theory" and said "it is not easy to point to a direct precedent for the case Mr. Bragg appears to be contemplating". IMO any case made against a DA's political opponents should rest on solid ground, not untested legal theories. It's disturbing that so many people are willing to throw away the legal system in order to prosecute someone they don't like.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The NY Times called the case an "untested legal theory" and said "it is not easy to point to a direct precedent for the case Mr. Bragg appears to be contemplating". > IMO any case made against a DA's political opponents should rest on solid ground, not untested legal theories. Exactly. It's an even bigger violation of the principle that "the law should apply to political leaders" to abuse the law in order to prosecute one. I'm no fan of Trump, but any case against him should be strong, not something so weird that an acrobat would have trouble jumping through all the hoops. Unfortunately, Trump broke America, including his opponents, and now they're out for blood and are willing to go as low or even lower than him to get it.
- junofan 4y ago
  Why? Prosecutors have discretion. Doesn’t mean the indictment is illegitimate.

kazinator 4y ago

I'm pretty sure I could pay hush money to a porn star and nothing would come of it, even if I blogged about it incessantly to get attention.

lokar 4y ago
Paying hush money is not a crime and no one is claiming it is.

seizethecheese 4y ago

The reason nobody should be above the law is because it’s important for our sense that the law is impartial. This is also why it’s important to not use the law as a political tool. Otherwise trust in the law is undermined.

ck2 4y ago

If they don't serve a day in prison does it matter or is it just fodder for the masses? Plenty of governors have been put in prison but an ex-president is going to have secret service, even in prison? This is a crime another person served time for so it's definitely a crime worthy of prison but of all the crimes, this is so damn stupid in comparison. I'd settle for CEOs and Bankers going to prison for all the crimes they have gotten away with on a daily basis than even one president as despised as they are.

xwdv 4y ago

Yes. I’m pretty sure Obama should have to answer for the drone executions he ordered (some which were even American citizens, which seems very illegal).

guelo 4y ago
I'm down with it. Though the executive exercising war powers seems as far as possible from a non-president commiting state-level fraud.

rufus_foreman 4y 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"

nebula8804 4y ago

I wonder if all the innocent people killed in the US's overseas wars will get justice or their families get reparations. There seems like such a long list of justice that has yet to be delivered that makes me ponder if this is the beginning of an avalanche of change or just a small bump on a slow moving boulder. If its the former, that bodes really well for humanity but if its the latter then I am not sure how much this event will do to slow the continued erosion of institutions here and worldwide.

concordDance 4y ago

While it would be great to actually charge former US presidents for what they've done (Bush and Obama war crimes anyone?), politically motivated selective prosecutions are extremely corrosive. And that's what campaign finance charges (not specifically Trump ones) look like to this non-American. Honestly, what the US campaign financing system needs is a full overhaul, its full of legal and illegal-but-ignored corruption.

bobsil1 4y ago

The opposite — the US constitution is more like a slaver bill of rights, rife with plantation oligarch backdoors. The checks and balances are akin to NBA owners negotiating how not to ruin each other. Those rights originally were only extended to white men formally, and only rich white men in effect.

jeffrallen 4y ago

And Secretaries of State. Looking at you H.K.

guilhas 4y ago

That would be great, if it was a relevant crime. Which is there is plenty in need of investigation among US politicians. This is a big show about an ex-President stealing the Whitehouse pencils