12 ms·

Not a lawyer, nor am I American. No horse in this except maybe a citizen of the world. This seems like a weak case to me. For a former president and polarizing

Not a lawyer, nor am I American. No horse in this except maybe a citizen of the world. This seems like a weak case to me. For a former president and polarizing figure, you would think the bar on prosecution would be air tight. If he goes to jail for a crime the population (or his support base) considers is trivial or if he does not get convicted, it raises Trump's stock to the stratosphere. Perhaps if he goes to jail, he can't run for office? Still .. seems very dubious based on the info in the news so far. Here is an analogy I thought of. Say my firm's database gets ransomewared. If I pay the ransom directly, that may be a particular way of accounting. But say, I pay McCohen Computer Associates to fix the problem. Why do I not book it as a computer expense? I am not an accountant but am curious how this works. Also, booking something in the wrong accounting category, doesn't seem like a very convincing charge. On the other hand, Tax and election violations are very serious.

ChatGTP 4y ago
No at all a Trump fan but another one of these things that could easily backfire and make him look like a hero. It wreaks of some type of attempt to politically assassinate him before the next election. Like I said, not a fan, just kind of seems suspicious.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I find it interesting to consider “who would the Democrats most prefer to run against in 2024?” If the economy is weak, I think they’d rather run against Trump (who has a base that’s fiercely loyal but more narrow) rather than a GOP candidate who will pull the majority of Trump’s base but also a wider swath from the “center” population by hammering on the economy. If the economy is strong, historically it doesn’t matter much who the incumbent runs against.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Those people in the "center" are so disingenuous. They "aren't republicans" but they will criticize democrats for anything and suddenly be "concerned about the economy" when gas prices raise a few cents. It's pathetic. Meanwhile the economy and government budget regularly do better under Democrats but noooooo only Democrats have to face the """"economy is doing poorly"""" nonsense.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I think plenty of the center are happy to criticize both parties when they do stupid things (as is healthy and appropriate, IMO). Fervent supporters of a particular side might notice a lot more when their party is criticized.
  - MontgomeryPi2 4y ago
    Bingo. This strategy doesn't 'backfire' if it helps Trump become the 2024 GOP candidate. Feature not bug.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > another one of these things that could easily backfire and make him look like a hero That's Trump's real accomplishment—complain so loudly that the idea of being held accountable for your crimes makes you look like a hero.
- sowbug 4y ago
  *reeks
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
I'd imagine part of the strategy is to get Trump on the stand. He's going to lie (because he can't help it) and that opens him up to perjury charges. But there are bizarre aspects to this case. One is that Trump associates like Giuliani and Deripaska were raided, but there don't seem to have been any subsequent charges. Another is that there's so much on Trump - from tax dodging, to Jan 6, to links to suspect foreign money - that it seems like a strange case to highlight.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- macintux 4y ago
  I’m not sure he’s going to lie. He seems to have a keen awareness of the perils of lying when there are actual legal consequences.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    You think Trump is known for self control?
    - macintux 4y ago
      He avoids depositions like the plague, and last year when he couldn’t he pleaded the 5th 440 times.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        Yes, I agree that one of his tactics is to avoid consequences. While I can see how that is a form of self control he also tweets outrageous things. Maybe he's more careful when cornered, like if he's on the stand he'll change to a much safer personality.
- happythebob 4y ago
  They're separate investigations. I am sad that I'm on Hacker News right now. This is not more "curious" conversation than anything you find on Fox or MSN.
AdamN 4y ago
The prosecutor can only look at crimes in their jurisdiction. In this case it's a NY prosecutor and only crimes in that state can be charged. In fact, we don't know what the charges are yet as they are sealed (although the leak says it's 30+ charges). There are other, stronger cases against Trump being pursued in Georgia and at the Federal level (and perhaps more than that). In the end, this is important though as we already have convictions that his company was committing tax fraud but those don't go back to him personally because the CFO was non-cooperative (and Trump probably wasn't directly involved enough to be convicted). The campaign finance part though is definitely personally handled by him. He allegedly used money donated by people to his campaign to pay his lawyer who then used the money to pay Stormy Daniels. That money was billed as legal expenses for the campaign. That's more than accounting fraud - it's tax fraud and it's fraud against our democracy.
ChicagoDave 4y ago
[flagged]
- pc86 4y ago
  This is the type of partisan hackery I would expect in the comment section of an MSNBC article or on r/politics, but not here.
  - askin4it 4y ago
    Lower your expectations...
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Why do you believe hackernews is special?
- lumb63 4y ago
  Your characterization of who voted for Trump is way off [1]. 42% of female voters, 36% of voters 18-29. Your post also implies that older generations supported Roe, but it is widely accepted that the precedent established in Roe was legislation via the judicial branch. It was an undemocratic law forced upon them, rather than something they chose. Three quarters of states had laws criminalizing abortions at the time the amendment used to justify Roe was added to the constitution [2]. I won’t defend gerrymandering or voter suppression, but I will point out that it cuts both ways. In my own, left-leaning, state, no ID is needed to vote, so anyone can vote as anyone else so long as they know their address. There are stories all over the country about absentee ballots being mailed to dead people, etc. I perceive both parties as trying to rig rules around elections in order to favor their parties. The right does it by voter suppression and strict poll laws, and the left does it by making it easier for those who are not eligible to vote to do so. I’m also curious what you mean by “this fascist assault”. What are you referring to as being a fascist assault and why? [1]: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 [2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
_pigpen__ 4y ago
The bar should be fairly air tight. Cohen has already served time for this crime. Moreover, he was charged with acting in conspiracy with “Individual 1”. While Trump will face a separate trial, with all that entails, in practice there was already a successful trial for at least some of Trump’s crime. In your example, both payments would be legitimate business expenses.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  I believe Bragg probably knows what he's doing, but the charge against Cohen isn't a good argument. Cohen really got a raw deal from the prosecutor and basically got threatened with more charges, and his wife getting charged, unless he pleads guilty within a day or so. That's why the quality of the individual charges in that plea deal can't be taken for granted.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > Cohen has already served time for this crime. No, he hasn't. He pled guilty to seven unrelated financial charges and to one charge related to the payment to Stormy Daniels: making an excessive campaign contribution. That last charge doesn't apply to Trump, who is allowed to contribute as much as he wants to his own campaign. And Cohen's plea tells us nothing about whether recording the payment as "legal expenses" is a crime.
wincy 4y ago
From what I understand, you can run for office even if you’re in prison.
- jonlucc 4y ago
  While technically true, and is, in my opinion, one way to avoid jailing political enemies just to take them off the ballot, there's a reason candidates do a lot of rallies while they're campaigning. If a candidate is actually in jail, they'll legally be on the ballot, but they'll face a very steep uphill battle for the practical needs of a campaign.
  - LeFantome 4y ago
    When you say “avoid jailing political enemies just to take them off the ballot”, do actually mean “avoid prosecuting criminals just to avoid accusations that you are politically motivated”? In my view, the only reason to jail anybody is because they violated the law. If somebody that violated the law is subsequently jailed, it feels pretty dishonest to say that it was done “just to take them off the ballot”. Not only that, it is inaccurate. Jailing somebody does not take them off the ballot. However, not prosecuting them DOES put them above the law. Perhaps we have different ideas about the real problems described above.
- zikduruqe 4y ago
  Correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
alistairSH 4y ago
This seems like a weak case to me. Assuming the charges are limited to the Daniels payment, you're correct. It's a weak case. They have to prove the misdemeanor accounting charge, then to elevate to a felony, the DA must prove that crime was used to cover-up some other more serious crime (likely campaign finance related). The last time a similar case was brought, it was against John Edwards (who took money to pay for housing for his mistress, or something like that). He was acquitted. But, it appears the indictment has 34(?) charges. If they're counting each check to Cohen as a charge, that's 11(?), so there's something else there. Some of that could be conspiracy charges, but we don't know. Say my firm's database gets ransomewared. If I pay the ransom directly, that may be a particular way of accounting. But say, I pay McCohen Computer Associates to fix the problem. Why do I not book it as a computer expense? I am not an accountant but am curious how this works. The two-step payment through Cohen is only illegal if it's done to cover up other illegal activities or it's in violation of some other law. In this case, it's likely the hush money was funneled through Cohen to keep it off the campaign books - that's what makes it illegal.
- LeFantome 4y ago
  I just want to point out that the last time a similar case was brought was against Cohen for this exact same crime. Cohen was convicted and served time in federal prison. In his trial, Cohen testified that he broke the law at the direction of somebody only referred to in the public disclosures as “Individual 1”. The only plausible person this can be is Donald Trump. So, regardless of what you think of the case. Leaving out that somebody was already successfully convicted of this exact crime is a significant omission. We do not know the charges yet of course. The most significant are likely to be campaign finance related with details of falsified records and hush money payments providing supporting evidence of those crimes as much as they are crimes themselves.
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    It's not clear to me that this is the "exact same crime". Also, is it significant that Cohen plead guilty? I'm not sure Trump will.
  - 4y ago
ethbr0 4y ago
> Perhaps if he goes to jail, he can't run for office? There is no restriction on a candidate for the US presidency vis-a-vis current or former incarceration. Anyone could constitutionally run a presidential campaign or even serve while in jail. This is because the Supreme Court has held that only the Constitution can set qualification requirements. [0] The sole, debatable exclusion seems to be the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and cabinet (or the president themselves) to shift presidential powers to the vice president when "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." [1] [0] https://fortune.com/2023/03/30/donald-trump-can-still-run-for-president-after-indictment/ https://fortune.com/2023/03/30/donald-trump-can-still-run-fo... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
- twic 4y ago
  Indeed, Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison in 1920: https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/debs-received-million-votes/ https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/debs-received-millio...
  - msrenee 4y ago
    If he is convicted of a felony and does run for president again, then he won't be able to vote, right? Maybe it'll be an impetus to create a clearer path for convicted felons who served their time and don't reoffend to regain their voting rights. Probably not, but it would be nice.
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      Convicted felons should 100% be allowed to vote though. I never quite understood the fear of letting them vote. Indeed keeping them engaged in society instead of ostracizing them feels like it helps prevent them from reoffending.
      - generj 4y ago
        Worse it creates incentives to convict people who are likely to be political opponents to prevent them from voting. This practice also removes a voice from one of the most vulnerable groups in society, the incarcerated. Like many things, it ties back to the failure of Reconstruction. Many felony disenfranchisement laws were passed alongside Black Codes. 7.4 percent of African American adults are disenfranchised compared to 1.8 percent of those who are not African American.
mbesto 4y ago
> This seems like a weak case to me. This is why we can't have nice things. None of the charges have been disclosed so why even opine on this yet? It's all speculation at this point.
arrrg 4y ago
Criminal proceedings for ex heads of state or government aren’t at all uncommon in perfectly functioning democracies. It seems to me that the US is more of an outlier in this regard, so this seems to me a positive sign of the US moving in the right direction.
greenhearth 4y ago
So what if the case is weak? They should just let it slide then? Whatever country you're from, or whatever ideology you subscribe to, maybe you can appreciate the beauty of putting a strongman POS dictator wannabe on trial for even a parking violation.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Yeah I don't understand why so many people seem to be against this just because it's unlikely it will be raised to a felony or connected to other crimes. Isn't it fine if this just hits Trump with a small fine or 3 days in jail or something? A fair punishment for a misdemeanor would be fine with me for this case. That's like the whole point of justice, that even the former president should have to follow the fine details. In my state, our Democrat governor was accused of being a tyrant because of some minor paperwork she didn't do during emergency covid meetings. She still paid the fine because she committed the "crime" (procedural violation?) and that's how it should be. Politicians should not be immune to the little stuff. If they are speeding, they should get a ticket. If they shoplift, they should face a fine. If they forget to report a W2 to the IRS, they should get a pleasant letter telling them their mistake and they owe a few hundred dollars. I consider that a GOOD thing
- mcv 4y ago
  My concern isn't that this case is being prosecuted, but that all the stronger cases aren't. Sure, breaking campaign finance laws is bad and should be prosecuted, but he tried to overthrow the government! He had tons of classified documents in his basement and refused to return them. I truly do not understand why he hasn't been arrested for those two. They're more serious crimes, and there's plenty of evidence.
w0m 4y ago
> for a former president and polarizing figure, you would think the bar on prosecution would be air tight. This i the crux I think - It's clearly a crime, but should he be held accountable or not due to notoriety? personally, I think public figures (especially politicians) should be held to a higher standard than mere-mortals; but many seem to believe the opposite. You don't want your <insert political candidate> arrested/prosecuted? Don't elect a morally ambiguous one then. Higher standards, not lower.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > It's clearly a crime What, exactly, is "clearly a crime"? The accounting issue is at worst a misdemeanor, unless the DA can show that the payment to SD was a campaign finance violation. But if it was "clearly" a campaign finance violation, why haven't federal prosecutors charged him with that? Bragg is a motivated prosecutor trying to find a way to prosecute Trump for a charge he has no jurisdiction over, while the prosecutors who do have jurisdiction don't think it's worth prosecuting. And that's dangerous. Prosecutions should not be motivated by politics.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  > I think public figures (especially politicians) should be held to a higher standard than mere-mortals; but many seem to believe the opposite. I think people should be seen as equals before the law. Having one set of standards[law] for one group and a different set for another group is antithetical to rule of law which is purportedly a common American value FWIW.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > running your family as a syndicate Evidence? And offspring doing something on their own doesn't count. > illegal immigrants in order to sway voter demographics That's not how voting works. > dossier full of lies about your opponent Sure that one counts. Sometimes both choices are bad. But one candidate doing something bad doesn't mean you increase what the other candidate can get away with.

ChatGTP 4y ago

No at all a Trump fan but another one of these things that could easily backfire and make him look like a hero. It wreaks of some type of attempt to politically assassinate him before the next election. Like I said, not a fan, just kind of seems suspicious.

sokoloff 4y ago
I find it interesting to consider “who would the Democrats most prefer to run against in 2024?” If the economy is weak, I think they’d rather run against Trump (who has a base that’s fiercely loyal but more narrow) rather than a GOP candidate who will pull the majority of Trump’s base but also a wider swath from the “center” population by hammering on the economy. If the economy is strong, historically it doesn’t matter much who the incumbent runs against.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Those people in the "center" are so disingenuous. They "aren't republicans" but they will criticize democrats for anything and suddenly be "concerned about the economy" when gas prices raise a few cents. It's pathetic. Meanwhile the economy and government budget regularly do better under Democrats but noooooo only Democrats have to face the """"economy is doing poorly"""" nonsense.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I think plenty of the center are happy to criticize both parties when they do stupid things (as is healthy and appropriate, IMO). Fervent supporters of a particular side might notice a lot more when their party is criticized.
- MontgomeryPi2 4y ago
  Bingo. This strategy doesn't 'backfire' if it helps Trump become the 2024 GOP candidate. Feature not bug.
mcphage 4y ago
> another one of these things that could easily backfire and make him look like a hero That's Trump's real accomplishment—complain so loudly that the idea of being held accountable for your crimes makes you look like a hero.
sowbug 4y ago
*reeks

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

I'd imagine part of the strategy is to get Trump on the stand. He's going to lie (because he can't help it) and that opens him up to perjury charges. But there are bizarre aspects to this case. One is that Trump associates like Giuliani and Deripaska were raided, but there don't seem to have been any subsequent charges. Another is that there's so much on Trump - from tax dodging, to Jan 6, to links to suspect foreign money - that it seems like a strange case to highlight.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
macintux 4y ago
I’m not sure he’s going to lie. He seems to have a keen awareness of the perils of lying when there are actual legal consequences.
- themitigating 4y ago
  You think Trump is known for self control?
  - macintux 4y ago
    He avoids depositions like the plague, and last year when he couldn’t he pleaded the 5th 440 times.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Yes, I agree that one of his tactics is to avoid consequences. While I can see how that is a form of self control he also tweets outrageous things. Maybe he's more careful when cornered, like if he's on the stand he'll change to a much safer personality.
happythebob 4y ago
They're separate investigations. I am sad that I'm on Hacker News right now. This is not more "curious" conversation than anything you find on Fox or MSN.

AdamN 4y ago

The prosecutor can only look at crimes in their jurisdiction. In this case it's a NY prosecutor and only crimes in that state can be charged. In fact, we don't know what the charges are yet as they are sealed (although the leak says it's 30+ charges). There are other, stronger cases against Trump being pursued in Georgia and at the Federal level (and perhaps more than that). In the end, this is important though as we already have convictions that his company was committing tax fraud but those don't go back to him personally because the CFO was non-cooperative (and Trump probably wasn't directly involved enough to be convicted). The campaign finance part though is definitely personally handled by him. He allegedly used money donated by people to his campaign to pay his lawyer who then used the money to pay Stormy Daniels. That money was billed as legal expenses for the campaign. That's more than accounting fraud - it's tax fraud and it's fraud against our democracy.

ChicagoDave 4y ago

[flagged]

pc86 4y ago
This is the type of partisan hackery I would expect in the comment section of an MSNBC article or on r/politics, but not here.
- askin4it 4y ago
  Lower your expectations...
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Why do you believe hackernews is special?
lumb63 4y ago
Your characterization of who voted for Trump is way off [1]. 42% of female voters, 36% of voters 18-29. Your post also implies that older generations supported Roe, but it is widely accepted that the precedent established in Roe was legislation via the judicial branch. It was an undemocratic law forced upon them, rather than something they chose. Three quarters of states had laws criminalizing abortions at the time the amendment used to justify Roe was added to the constitution [2]. I won’t defend gerrymandering or voter suppression, but I will point out that it cuts both ways. In my own, left-leaning, state, no ID is needed to vote, so anyone can vote as anyone else so long as they know their address. There are stories all over the country about absentee ballots being mailed to dead people, etc. I perceive both parties as trying to rig rules around elections in order to favor their parties. The right does it by voter suppression and strict poll laws, and the left does it by making it easier for those who are not eligible to vote to do so. I’m also curious what you mean by “this fascist assault”. What are you referring to as being a fascist assault and why? [1]: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 [2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

_pigpen__ 4y ago

The bar should be fairly air tight. Cohen has already served time for this crime. Moreover, he was charged with acting in conspiracy with “Individual 1”. While Trump will face a separate trial, with all that entails, in practice there was already a successful trial for at least some of Trump’s crime. In your example, both payments would be legitimate business expenses.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
I believe Bragg probably knows what he's doing, but the charge against Cohen isn't a good argument. Cohen really got a raw deal from the prosecutor and basically got threatened with more charges, and his wife getting charged, unless he pleads guilty within a day or so. That's why the quality of the individual charges in that plea deal can't be taken for granted.
leereeves 4y ago
> Cohen has already served time for this crime. No, he hasn't. He pled guilty to seven unrelated financial charges and to one charge related to the payment to Stormy Daniels: making an excessive campaign contribution. That last charge doesn't apply to Trump, who is allowed to contribute as much as he wants to his own campaign. And Cohen's plea tells us nothing about whether recording the payment as "legal expenses" is a crime.

wincy 4y ago

From what I understand, you can run for office even if you’re in prison.

jonlucc 4y ago
While technically true, and is, in my opinion, one way to avoid jailing political enemies just to take them off the ballot, there's a reason candidates do a lot of rallies while they're campaigning. If a candidate is actually in jail, they'll legally be on the ballot, but they'll face a very steep uphill battle for the practical needs of a campaign.
- LeFantome 4y ago
  When you say “avoid jailing political enemies just to take them off the ballot”, do actually mean “avoid prosecuting criminals just to avoid accusations that you are politically motivated”? In my view, the only reason to jail anybody is because they violated the law. If somebody that violated the law is subsequently jailed, it feels pretty dishonest to say that it was done “just to take them off the ballot”. Not only that, it is inaccurate. Jailing somebody does not take them off the ballot. However, not prosecuting them DOES put them above the law. Perhaps we have different ideas about the real problems described above.
zikduruqe 4y ago
Correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

alistairSH 4y ago

This seems like a weak case to me. Assuming the charges are limited to the Daniels payment, you're correct. It's a weak case. They have to prove the misdemeanor accounting charge, then to elevate to a felony, the DA must prove that crime was used to cover-up some other more serious crime (likely campaign finance related). The last time a similar case was brought, it was against John Edwards (who took money to pay for housing for his mistress, or something like that). He was acquitted. But, it appears the indictment has 34(?) charges. If they're counting each check to Cohen as a charge, that's 11(?), so there's something else there. Some of that could be conspiracy charges, but we don't know. Say my firm's database gets ransomewared. If I pay the ransom directly, that may be a particular way of accounting. But say, I pay McCohen Computer Associates to fix the problem. Why do I not book it as a computer expense? I am not an accountant but am curious how this works. The two-step payment through Cohen is only illegal if it's done to cover up other illegal activities or it's in violation of some other law. In this case, it's likely the hush money was funneled through Cohen to keep it off the campaign books - that's what makes it illegal.

LeFantome 4y ago
I just want to point out that the last time a similar case was brought was against Cohen for this exact same crime. Cohen was convicted and served time in federal prison. In his trial, Cohen testified that he broke the law at the direction of somebody only referred to in the public disclosures as “Individual 1”. The only plausible person this can be is Donald Trump. So, regardless of what you think of the case. Leaving out that somebody was already successfully convicted of this exact crime is a significant omission. We do not know the charges yet of course. The most significant are likely to be campaign finance related with details of falsified records and hush money payments providing supporting evidence of those crimes as much as they are crimes themselves.
- Chris2048 4y ago
  It's not clear to me that this is the "exact same crime". Also, is it significant that Cohen plead guilty? I'm not sure Trump will.
- 4y ago

ethbr0 4y ago

> Perhaps if he goes to jail, he can't run for office? There is no restriction on a candidate for the US presidency vis-a-vis current or former incarceration. Anyone could constitutionally run a presidential campaign or even serve while in jail. This is because the Supreme Court has held that only the Constitution can set qualification requirements. [0] The sole, debatable exclusion seems to be the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and cabinet (or the president themselves) to shift presidential powers to the vice president when "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." [1] [0] https://fortune.com/2023/03/30/donald-trump-can-still-run-for-president-after-indictment/ https://fortune.com/2023/03/30/donald-trump-can-still-run-fo... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

twic 4y ago
Indeed, Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison in 1920: https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/debs-received-million-votes/ https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/debs-received-millio...
- msrenee 4y ago
  If he is convicted of a felony and does run for president again, then he won't be able to vote, right? Maybe it'll be an impetus to create a clearer path for convicted felons who served their time and don't reoffend to regain their voting rights. Probably not, but it would be nice.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    Convicted felons should 100% be allowed to vote though. I never quite understood the fear of letting them vote. Indeed keeping them engaged in society instead of ostracizing them feels like it helps prevent them from reoffending.
    - generj 4y ago
      Worse it creates incentives to convict people who are likely to be political opponents to prevent them from voting. This practice also removes a voice from one of the most vulnerable groups in society, the incarcerated. Like many things, it ties back to the failure of Reconstruction. Many felony disenfranchisement laws were passed alongside Black Codes. 7.4 percent of African American adults are disenfranchised compared to 1.8 percent of those who are not African American.

mbesto 4y ago

> This seems like a weak case to me. This is why we can't have nice things. None of the charges have been disclosed so why even opine on this yet? It's all speculation at this point.

arrrg 4y ago

Criminal proceedings for ex heads of state or government aren’t at all uncommon in perfectly functioning democracies. It seems to me that the US is more of an outlier in this regard, so this seems to me a positive sign of the US moving in the right direction.

greenhearth 4y ago

So what if the case is weak? They should just let it slide then? Whatever country you're from, or whatever ideology you subscribe to, maybe you can appreciate the beauty of putting a strongman POS dictator wannabe on trial for even a parking violation.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Yeah I don't understand why so many people seem to be against this just because it's unlikely it will be raised to a felony or connected to other crimes. Isn't it fine if this just hits Trump with a small fine or 3 days in jail or something? A fair punishment for a misdemeanor would be fine with me for this case. That's like the whole point of justice, that even the former president should have to follow the fine details. In my state, our Democrat governor was accused of being a tyrant because of some minor paperwork she didn't do during emergency covid meetings. She still paid the fine because she committed the "crime" (procedural violation?) and that's how it should be. Politicians should not be immune to the little stuff. If they are speeding, they should get a ticket. If they shoplift, they should face a fine. If they forget to report a W2 to the IRS, they should get a pleasant letter telling them their mistake and they owe a few hundred dollars. I consider that a GOOD thing
mcv 4y ago
My concern isn't that this case is being prosecuted, but that all the stronger cases aren't. Sure, breaking campaign finance laws is bad and should be prosecuted, but he tried to overthrow the government! He had tons of classified documents in his basement and refused to return them. I truly do not understand why he hasn't been arrested for those two. They're more serious crimes, and there's plenty of evidence.

w0m 4y ago

> for a former president and polarizing figure, you would think the bar on prosecution would be air tight. This i the crux I think - It's clearly a crime, but should he be held accountable or not due to notoriety? personally, I think public figures (especially politicians) should be held to a higher standard than mere-mortals; but many seem to believe the opposite. You don't want your <insert political candidate> arrested/prosecuted? Don't elect a morally ambiguous one then. Higher standards, not lower.

leereeves 4y ago
> It's clearly a crime What, exactly, is "clearly a crime"? The accounting issue is at worst a misdemeanor, unless the DA can show that the payment to SD was a campaign finance violation. But if it was "clearly" a campaign finance violation, why haven't federal prosecutors charged him with that? Bragg is a motivated prosecutor trying to find a way to prosecute Trump for a charge he has no jurisdiction over, while the prosecutors who do have jurisdiction don't think it's worth prosecuting. And that's dangerous. Prosecutions should not be motivated by politics.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
> I think public figures (especially politicians) should be held to a higher standard than mere-mortals; but many seem to believe the opposite. I think people should be seen as equals before the law. Having one set of standards[law] for one group and a different set for another group is antithetical to rule of law which is purportedly a common American value FWIW.
lazyeye 4y ago
[flagged]
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > running your family as a syndicate Evidence? And offspring doing something on their own doesn't count. > illegal immigrants in order to sway voter demographics That's not how voting works. > dossier full of lies about your opponent Sure that one counts. Sometimes both choices are bad. But one candidate doing something bad doesn't mean you increase what the other candidate can get away with.