undefined | Better HN

0 pointscatlifeonmars1y ago0 comments

Nothing unless you’re running for public office. The rules are understandably different when you’re beholden to the people. Personally I’m ok with this distinction. Politicians should have to give up some rights that private citizens have and be held to a higher bar to guard against the tendency towards corruption that comes with greater influence and power.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

rayiner1y ago· 2 in thread

He wasn’t running for public office at the time.

And maybe we should have a law that punishes politicians for paying money to cover up affairs. But we don't have that. Trump's prosecution was, instead, a triple bank shot combining three different vaguely written laws in a combination that makes the Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich look straightforward.[1]

As CNN's head legal analyst Elie Honig explained: "The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich

kemayo1y ago

Yes he was. The payment in question happened after he launched his campaign -- in late October of 2016.

[EDIT to respond a bit to the now-expanded parent, which was only a single sentence when I replied]: I do totally agree that the hush money prosecution was a bit of a stretch, and wouldn't have happened if Trump wasn't famous. You're just wrong about it applying to a time when he wasn't running for office.

rayiner1y ago

Except the charges related to business records dated February 14-December 5, 2017.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse