4 ms·

We’ve prosecuted a vice president candidate for similar crimes. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senator-and-presidential-candidate-john-edwards-charged-a

by 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
    And yet the media has been explaining it for weeks. I guess I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they have sources and aren't just making it up.
    - jshen 4y ago
      Can you provide a link.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        "Trump ... being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury for his alleged role in the [SD payment], according to multiple sources familiar with the matter." https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/politics/trump-manhattan-district-attorney-charges-explainer/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/politics/trump-manhattan-dist...
        jshen 4y ago
        It doesn’t mention any specific charges or the evidence to support them. This is one of the first paragraphs from your link! “ The indictment has been filed under seal and will be announced in the coming days. The charges are not publicly known at this time, one source told CNN.”
        leereeves 4y ago
        Yes, it was under seal, and yet they claimed to have "multiple sources familiar with the matter." It's not uncommon for the media to publish things that haven't been officially revealed. Leaks, you know.

by adrr 4y ago

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
  And yet the media has been explaining it for weeks. I guess I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they have sources and aren't just making it up.
  - jshen 4y ago
    Can you provide a link.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      "Trump ... being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury for his alleged role in the [SD payment], according to multiple sources familiar with the matter." https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/politics/trump-manhattan-district-attorney-charges-explainer/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/politics/trump-manhattan-dist...
      - jshen 4y ago
        It doesn’t mention any specific charges or the evidence to support them. This is one of the first paragraphs from your link! “ The indictment has been filed under seal and will be announced in the coming days. The charges are not publicly known at this time, one source told CNN.”
        leereeves 4y ago
        Yes, it was under seal, and yet they claimed to have "multiple sources familiar with the matter." It's not uncommon for the media to publish things that haven't been officially revealed. Leaks, you know.