4 ms·

From what I read, the indictment is sealed. Does that mean we don't really know precisely what the charges are yet? I'm willing to wait and see. Also, from eve

From what I read, the indictment is sealed. Does that mean we don't really know precisely what the charges are yet? I'm willing to wait and see. Also, from everything I've read, well defended people are remarkably hard to convict. This is as it should be, as it may let some people go scot free, but protects the rest of us. Convicting Trump will be hard. It might fail. Does this mean that charges should not be brought in the first place? That's a question I don't know how to answer, for any "white collar" or prominent defendant.

brigandish 4y ago
How does it protect the rest of us if "well defended people" means "those able to afford better lawyers"?
- unixgoddess 4y ago
  same question here...
  - pseingatl 4y ago
    Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson, precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.
    - berniedurfee 4y ago
      Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Precedent can be and is open to change - and should be in the case of bad precedent - and did you mean Dobbs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...
- analog31 4y ago
  Admittedly, I thought I was being concise, but edited my post into a real head-scratcher. I was thinking along the lines of protections such as presumption of innocence, and burden of proof, as making it hard to convict people. But it does require competent defense to enforce those things. An example of easy to convict is countries where prominent dissidents are arrested for nebulous "corruption," and basically stand no chance.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Ah, I see now. Good point. I love common law but one aspect that seems inescapably (though perhaps not wholly) negative is the different levels of access to justice that come with different levels of wealth.
BrandoElFollito 4y ago
Since there is the concept of sealed indictment, why are all the indictments not sealed (or none of them)? I guess this is to preserve the person that is accused (because an accusation is easier to make than to defend, given the visibility decided by the media, supporters, etc)) - do why some are more preserved then others? Since the topic is a hot one, please note that I am from France and have no stakes nor interest in the political discussion, I am genuinely interested in that concept of this seal which we do not have AFAICT.
- Seam0nkey 4y ago
  Most indictments are never sealed (if the accused has been arrested on other charges, for example, there isn't much use in trying to keep it secret from the accused), and the ones that are always become unsealed in order to go to trial. There are a number of reasons to file an indictment under seal - ranging from juvenile records to managing flight risks of the accused. The one that is probably most pertinent in this case has to do with testimony in front of a grand jury: both encouraging it to occur, and preventing it from being tampered with by the accused.
  - BrandoElFollito 4y ago
    Ahhhh, the seal is there to keep the details secret for everyone, including the accused. OK, now I understand the reason behind this mechanism (especially that the indictments are unsealed when when going to trial). Thank you for the precisions
- mcculley 4y ago
  > I am from France and have no stakes nor interest in the political discussion The impact of U.S. politics goes well beyond its borders.
  - BrandoElFollito 4y ago
    Yes, but when reading the comments I see a lot of US political discussions about whether this is a problem or not, Whether D Trump is ok or not, etc. I am not interested in these and did not want my question about what a seal is to diverge on whether this is a good thing or not to seal (or not seal)
Tangurena2 4y ago
Trump has a habit of not paying his bills. This has led him to complain in the past year that he is having trouble hiring attorneys.

brigandish 4y ago

How does it protect the rest of us if "well defended people" means "those able to afford better lawyers"?

unixgoddess 4y ago
same question here...
- pseingatl 4y ago
  Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson, precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.
  - berniedurfee 4y ago
    Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Precedent can be and is open to change - and should be in the case of bad precedent - and did you mean Dobbs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...
analog31 4y ago
Admittedly, I thought I was being concise, but edited my post into a real head-scratcher. I was thinking along the lines of protections such as presumption of innocence, and burden of proof, as making it hard to convict people. But it does require competent defense to enforce those things. An example of easy to convict is countries where prominent dissidents are arrested for nebulous "corruption," and basically stand no chance.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Ah, I see now. Good point. I love common law but one aspect that seems inescapably (though perhaps not wholly) negative is the different levels of access to justice that come with different levels of wealth.

BrandoElFollito 4y ago

Since there is the concept of sealed indictment, why are all the indictments not sealed (or none of them)? I guess this is to preserve the person that is accused (because an accusation is easier to make than to defend, given the visibility decided by the media, supporters, etc)) - do why some are more preserved then others? Since the topic is a hot one, please note that I am from France and have no stakes nor interest in the political discussion, I am genuinely interested in that concept of this seal which we do not have AFAICT.

Seam0nkey 4y ago
Most indictments are never sealed (if the accused has been arrested on other charges, for example, there isn't much use in trying to keep it secret from the accused), and the ones that are always become unsealed in order to go to trial. There are a number of reasons to file an indictment under seal - ranging from juvenile records to managing flight risks of the accused. The one that is probably most pertinent in this case has to do with testimony in front of a grand jury: both encouraging it to occur, and preventing it from being tampered with by the accused.
- BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  Ahhhh, the seal is there to keep the details secret for everyone, including the accused. OK, now I understand the reason behind this mechanism (especially that the indictments are unsealed when when going to trial). Thank you for the precisions
mcculley 4y ago
> I am from France and have no stakes nor interest in the political discussion The impact of U.S. politics goes well beyond its borders.
- BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  Yes, but when reading the comments I see a lot of US political discussions about whether this is a problem or not, Whether D Trump is ok or not, etc. I am not interested in these and did not want my question about what a seal is to diverge on whether this is a good thing or not to seal (or not seal)

Tangurena2 4y ago

Trump has a habit of not paying his bills. This has led him to complain in the past year that he is having trouble hiring attorneys.