5 ms·

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,

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - dmix 4y ago
    The “how is this related to HN?” is the most boring category of comment on HN. If it wasn’t of interest to our demo and was mostly producing flamewars it would be quickly flagged off the frontpage. We don’t need heavy handed moderation to determine what’s relevant to HN, like Reddit pretends it needs. The community does a good job and the mods step in when necessary. And if HN occasionally doesn’t flag stuff and it bothers you then don’t click on it. We don’t always get it right.
- leereeves 4y ago
  That VP was not convicted, however. And more importantly, that's not what Trump was indicted for. Indicting him for misusing campaign funds would be straight-forward, if they could prove it. So the fact that they indicted him for something else seems to show that they couldn't prove he misused campaign funds. They actually indicted him for recording a payment to his lawyer as "legal expenses", because it was allegedly used to pay for Stormy Daniels silence. What I don't understand is why this is different from the many other cases when people and companies pay to settle claims in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement. Those are usually considered legal expenses.
  - jshen 4y ago
    We don’t know yet what he was indicted for exactly.
    - leereeves 4y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
If, somehow, Bush and Cheney are even considered for an investigation, I will gladly support Bragg's effort. That said, can you give me a rough estimate of a chance of that happening in the next decade?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  On what grounds would the DA of Manhattan have for prosecuting Bush and Cheney?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    edit: I missed the DA of Manhattan part so the comment below no longer applies, but I decided to keep it unaltered since we seem to be forgetting history rather quick. << On what grounds would the DA of Manhattan have for prosecuting Bush and Cheney? Is it a real question? On the off chance it is a real question, I am going to open with Iraq war, associated war crimes[1] and go from there[2] to people who wrote about it rather extensively and have some knowledge of the subject[3]. I am starting to think that there is wisdom in just waiting. Clearly, you can do anything if you let just enough time pass. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#By_Coalition_forces_and_private_contractors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#By_Coalition_forces_a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1 https://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=oembed&ena... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      I was being cheeky, sorry. To make my point directly, I think you get that it's the DA's job to prosecute crimes in his district. The year is 2023, and before him he has details of a crime. It doesn't matter that some other crime at some other time in the past wasn't prosecuted by some other prosecutor. It was never on Bragg to do so. The decision to prosecute this crime must be based on the evidence. It cannot be based on who Trump is, and whether other people who held his position were prosecuted for other unrelated things. This has nothing to do about forgetting history, I lived through it and was calling for Bush to be prosecuted then. It's so weird to me that the people today who are saying "Well what about Bush!!" are mostly those who voted for him twice, at least in my circles.
khazhoux 4y ago
I don’t believe all those can be traced to some law broken, though.
havblue 4y ago
Certainly, Bush and Cheney invaded a country under false pretenses after lying to the public. They also set up a surveillance state with the help of major corporations. And, maybe not so much of a crime, they set us on the path of thinking that deficits don't matter in this country: so for their increases in spending they steadfastly lowered taxes. And the bank bailouts.... The unfortunate matter though is the damage they did to this country was fairly bipartisan, which I believe plays a large part in Bush's rehabilitation in the public image after leaving office. At least he didn't make mean jokes like some people.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  Let's not forget Clapper who literally perjured himself in front of congress. Also most of the creatures in the state department during the Bush years, including of course Bolton, and also others, Frum in particular. And of course, let's not forget Hillary, who is silent as a rock right about now. Since you know, breaking the law is now en vogue to prosecute.
  - simoncion 4y ago
    Clapper did not literally perjure himself in front of Congress. He _absolutely_ did not. It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath. See: <https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-cmte-hearing-worldwide-threats-us https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-c...> for a recording of what I believe is the Senate hearing to which you are referring. Also consider the following quote from the Congressional Research Service about how the Senate chooses to place folks under oath: > By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. (In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings. Sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.) (via: <https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392>) Now, the NSA's lawyers absolutely _did_ lie under oath to the Supreme Court. What happened because of that? Absolutely fuckall. So, even if Clapper was testifying under oath, I'd expect absolutely nothing would have happened. (Don't forget that this is mostly the same Congress that gave every telecom company that (very, _very_ much illegally) permitted NSA warrantless access to their phone and data networks _retroactive_ immunity from prosecution.)
jhanschoo 4y ago
I don't think anything in this particular battle concerns anything he did in an official capacity while in office.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
a-user-you-like 4y ago
Yes, for WMD, president Obama for weaponizing the IRS. Both ought to be brought to trial.
- a-user-you-like 4y ago
  Someone either doesn’t like bush or Obama hah
abigail95 4y ago
Does anyone have standing to sue under 4th amendment spying violations? I thought this was settled years ago
larrik 4y ago
> r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims I mean, Saddam was the one making these claims the loudest (to look strong).
aww_dang 4y ago
I've had trouble finding the exact quote, but one of the Obama administration's justifications for not pursuing the abuses of the Bush administration was the precedent it would establish. As I recall, there was some worry that this would establish a norm where every outgoing administration could be targeted.

cool_dude85 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
- dmix 4y ago
  The “how is this related to HN?” is the most boring category of comment on HN. If it wasn’t of interest to our demo and was mostly producing flamewars it would be quickly flagged off the frontpage. We don’t need heavy handed moderation to determine what’s relevant to HN, like Reddit pretends it needs. The community does a good job and the mods step in when necessary. And if HN occasionally doesn’t flag stuff and it bothers you then don’t click on it. We don’t always get it right.
leereeves 4y ago
That VP was not convicted, however. And more importantly, that's not what Trump was indicted for. Indicting him for misusing campaign funds would be straight-forward, if they could prove it. So the fact that they indicted him for something else seems to show that they couldn't prove he misused campaign funds. They actually indicted him for recording a payment to his lawyer as "legal expenses", because it was allegedly used to pay for Stormy Daniels silence. What I don't understand is why this is different from the many other cases when people and companies pay to settle claims in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement. Those are usually considered legal expenses.
- jshen 4y ago
  We don’t know yet what he was indicted for exactly.
  - leereeves 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

If, somehow, Bush and Cheney are even considered for an investigation, I will gladly support Bragg's effort. That said, can you give me a rough estimate of a chance of that happening in the next decade?

ModernMech 4y ago
On what grounds would the DA of Manhattan have for prosecuting Bush and Cheney?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  edit: I missed the DA of Manhattan part so the comment below no longer applies, but I decided to keep it unaltered since we seem to be forgetting history rather quick. << On what grounds would the DA of Manhattan have for prosecuting Bush and Cheney? Is it a real question? On the off chance it is a real question, I am going to open with Iraq war, associated war crimes[1] and go from there[2] to people who wrote about it rather extensively and have some knowledge of the subject[3]. I am starting to think that there is wisdom in just waiting. Clearly, you can do anything if you let just enough time pass. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#By_Coalition_forces_and_private_contractors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#By_Coalition_forces_a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1 https://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8?feature=oembed&ena... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    I was being cheeky, sorry. To make my point directly, I think you get that it's the DA's job to prosecute crimes in his district. The year is 2023, and before him he has details of a crime. It doesn't matter that some other crime at some other time in the past wasn't prosecuted by some other prosecutor. It was never on Bragg to do so. The decision to prosecute this crime must be based on the evidence. It cannot be based on who Trump is, and whether other people who held his position were prosecuted for other unrelated things. This has nothing to do about forgetting history, I lived through it and was calling for Bush to be prosecuted then. It's so weird to me that the people today who are saying "Well what about Bush!!" are mostly those who voted for him twice, at least in my circles.

khazhoux 4y ago

I don’t believe all those can be traced to some law broken, though.

havblue 4y ago

Certainly, Bush and Cheney invaded a country under false pretenses after lying to the public. They also set up a surveillance state with the help of major corporations. And, maybe not so much of a crime, they set us on the path of thinking that deficits don't matter in this country: so for their increases in spending they steadfastly lowered taxes. And the bank bailouts.... The unfortunate matter though is the damage they did to this country was fairly bipartisan, which I believe plays a large part in Bush's rehabilitation in the public image after leaving office. At least he didn't make mean jokes like some people.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
Let's not forget Clapper who literally perjured himself in front of congress. Also most of the creatures in the state department during the Bush years, including of course Bolton, and also others, Frum in particular. And of course, let's not forget Hillary, who is silent as a rock right about now. Since you know, breaking the law is now en vogue to prosecute.
- simoncion 4y ago
  Clapper did not literally perjure himself in front of Congress. He _absolutely_ did not. It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath. See: <https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-cmte-hearing-worldwide-threats-us https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-c...> for a recording of what I believe is the Senate hearing to which you are referring. Also consider the following quote from the Congressional Research Service about how the Senate chooses to place folks under oath: > By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. (In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings. Sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.) (via: <https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392>) Now, the NSA's lawyers absolutely _did_ lie under oath to the Supreme Court. What happened because of that? Absolutely fuckall. So, even if Clapper was testifying under oath, I'd expect absolutely nothing would have happened. (Don't forget that this is mostly the same Congress that gave every telecom company that (very, _very_ much illegally) permitted NSA warrantless access to their phone and data networks _retroactive_ immunity from prosecution.)

jhanschoo 4y ago

I don't think anything in this particular battle concerns anything he did in an official capacity while in office.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

a-user-you-like 4y ago

Yes, for WMD, president Obama for weaponizing the IRS. Both ought to be brought to trial.

a-user-you-like 4y ago
Someone either doesn’t like bush or Obama hah

abigail95 4y ago

Does anyone have standing to sue under 4th amendment spying violations? I thought this was settled years ago

larrik 4y ago

> r.e. those "Saddam has an active WMD program" claims I mean, Saddam was the one making these claims the loudest (to look strong).

aww_dang 4y ago

I've had trouble finding the exact quote, but one of the Obama administration's justifications for not pursuing the abuses of the Bush administration was the precedent it would establish. As I recall, there was some worry that this would establish a norm where every outgoing administration could be targeted.