News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:TikTok goes dark in the US by rayiner on Sunday January 19, 2025 @12:23PM (#42759098)
> That is clearly a conspiratorial statistic taken out of nowhere.

95% of law firm contributions in 2019 went to Biden: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/snubbing-trump-law.... This support wasn’t out of economic interest. The overwhelming majority of lawyers are ideologically captured and hate Trump at a visceral and irrational level for not subscribing to that ideology.

> He was convicted of falsifying business records with intent to defraud and conspiring to “promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”.

Why quote the statute instead of the facts, which aren’t really in dispute? After he had already won the election, he reimbursed his lawyer for paying off a pornstar through his family business, and booked the reimbursements as “legal expenses” instead of “pornstar payoffs.”

Brilliant minds came over from top law firms to fit those facts into to a clever legal theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carey_R._Dunne. They figured it out, just like the figured out how to make Google’s profits magically all materialize in Ireland. But the underlying conduct remains a politician covering up an affair. That’s the best the legal industry could do after eight years of digging.

Re:TikTok goes dark in the US by skulk on Sunday January 19, 2025 @12:44PM (#42759344)
Let's back up a bit. Ancestor comments are saying "I wouldn't put it past Trump to take money to bring TikTok back." That's what's being discussed here. I'm not sure why you're on some personal crusade to make Trump seem unjustly persecuted. It's a bit strange, even, since that wasn't even the main contention here.
Re:TikTok goes dark in the US by xyzzyz on Sunday January 19, 2025 @01:18PM (#42759782)
Yes, that's what's being discussed, and the argument that's being made in this discussion is that Trump has so far apparently never done anything like that before.