Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
 [flagged] Elon Musk Is Absolutely Raging About the Trump Verdict (thedailybeast.com)
17 points by doener on June 2, 2024 | hide | past | favorite | 16 comments


> If a former President can be criminally convicted over such a trivial matter—motivated by politics, rather than justice—then anyone is at risk of a similar fate

It is a dark day when a private citizen can be tried for something they did while they were a private citizen and some time as an elected official inbetween does not cancel that out


I mean, I think you’re missing the point. He’s not distressed that a person could be prosecuted for fraud; he’s distressed that a _rich_ person could be prosecuted for fraud.


Elon worries that elites are not kings and he may one day also be held accountable in court.


Let me suggest the following comparison: Maybe Paul Renaud was a bad person but when Philippe Petain had him jailed for his late mistresses actions and spoke of how immoral and dishonorable he was while at the same time he himself was doing Hitler’s bidding wasn’t exactly honest or good.


Yes, it was indeed bad when Petain decreed Reynaud's arrest and handed him over to the Nazis to be imprisoned in a concentration camp. It's unclear what connection this has with the conviction of Donald Trump by a jury of his peers for falsifying business records.


He's not wrong. Consider just one aspect of the trial: the charges are about bookkeeping: mislabeling transactions. Therefore, it was essential to have Stormy Daniels testify about the sexual positions they used? The sex wasn't illegal. Paying her for an NDA wasn't illegal. Any competent judge would have disallowed this testimony.

Even if the verdict is correct, the conduct of the trial was entirely partisan.


The judge can only disallow the testimony if the opposing counsel objects.

Trump’s legal team didn’t object.

The judge said he was surprised they didn’t object, and that he would have blocked some of her testimony if they had done so.


Nope.

The defence strongly objected multiple times and sought a mistrial over Daniels' testimony; Judge Merchan ultimately allowed most of it over their objections, setting up a likely issue for appeal by Trump's team.


The defense is attempting to get a mistrial because Donald Trump is so obviously guilty of this crime that no sane court could find otherwise.

Much like when he lost the election, his preferred strategy is to pretend the rules shouldn't apply to him.


The defence attempted to engineer grounds for appeal. We will see whether they were successful in that. Trump’s legal defence MO is to delay everything for as long as possible and hope it goes away.

They have certainly done enough to convince Trump’s supporters, but that was a low bar to clear.


As much as I love watching Elon squirm, I wonder if he's telling on himself.

> If a former President can be criminally convicted over such a trivial matter ...

He's trivializing a federal crime. Is he projecting? Has he done something similar and thinks of it as "trivial"?


"Give me the man, and I will give you the case against him".

First said by a Soviet-era-someone, perhaps Stalin himself, WRT to his domestic adversaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_giv...

So incredibly dangerous.


Yes, and clearly the only alternative is to let people forge business records with impunity to cover up unscrupulous behavior.


This is a good point. Somebody once wrote a spooky phrase… makes you think that we shouldn’t have laws


That was not a jury of his peers.

I doubt a single one of them was as untrustworthy as ol Dishonest Don, no different than he was in the 1970's.


His muskiness is a cashed-up idiot.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: