Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rayiner 263 days ago
Your quote above from the article you linked says:

> [T]he DA has explained the case concerns an attempt by Trump to interfere in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election outcome.

If the DA himself says that Trump’s crime is interfering with the 2016 election, why doesn’t the DA have to charge the law that covers that, and prove every required element of the crime under that law?
1 comments
hypeatei 263 days ago
Because that's how the law in NY is written? I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here, to be honest. The case played out in the legal system, a judge ruled it should go forward, and a jury convicted Trump on these charges.

  A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.[0]
0: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
link
rayiner 263 days ago
So everything is fine as long as you can fit the facts into “how the law is written?”

If so, why are you complaining about the Comey prosecution? 18 USC 1001 is extremely broadly written: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully… (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation

It basically makes any lie about “a matter within the jurisdiction … government” into a felony. No surprise that even a blue state grand jury indicted Comey for this.

link
hypeatei 262 days ago
The problem with the Comey case is that Trump is publicly pressuring the DOJ and installed his former personal attorney as the prosecutor. It's reported that they did so because evidence is lacking and the former prosecutor was pushed out for saying so. I guess we'll see how the case plays out but you can't deny that is clear weaponization of the DOJ. I don't recall Biden ever doing this.

> No surprise that even a blue state grand jury

Why would being in a "blue state" matter here? I don't think it's a given that grand juries are politically biased.

link