Hush money isn't illegal, it's 'democracy,' Trump lawyer says in defiant trial opening statements
Hush money isn't illegal, it's 'democracy,' Trump lawyer says in defiant trial opening statements
Opening statements in Donald Trump's hush-money trial began Monday. A prosecutor said the case is about a "criminal conspiracy and a coverup."
- Opening statements began in Donald Trump's hush-money trial on Monday.
- Trump faces 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in the historic case.
- "This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a coverup," ADA Matthew Colangelo said.
Opening arguments in Donald Trump's historic criminal trial got underway on Monday with a prosecutor describing the case as being about a "criminal conspiracy," while a defense attorney for the former president likened hush-money payments to "democracy."
"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a coverup," Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo told the 12-person Manhattan jury in the hush-money trial.
Prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office allege Trump illegally falsified business records by covering up a $130,000 hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
You're viewing a single thread.
Remember when Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex?
It's not about the sex it's about the lies.
Like I personally don't give a shit that Clinton had sex with an intern. If it was all informed and consensual, that should between them and his wife. Same for any president. If Biden or Trump wants someone to give him a blow job in the oval office, go for it. I genuinely don't care how the president gets their rocks off, as long as it's not illegal or rape.
But the fact that its considered bad to have sex in puritanical society, they have to lie and now its a perjury case. It's weird how we can impeach a president for lying about getting a blowjob, but we can't stop an orange fucker for making a riot happen in the capitol.
Maybe this is me starting to be mentally coherent during the second term of Dubya, but Jesus Christ. You can lock kids in cages and no one gives a shit, you can start an attempt at a coup, and almost nothing happens. But somehow a blowjob was a major scandal that harmed the next election because your VP is running.
Just a quick note how is it consensual? How is a sexual relationship with that vast of a power differential truly consensual? An intern versus the most powerful man in the world? People need to stop talking about that as if they were star-crossed lovers it's fucking gross.
Consent is when two adults agree.
Consent is NOT when your boss implies or promises or conditions something.
If you want to ignore literally any context, sure.
edit: here's the context:
Consent is when two adults freely agree.
Any relationship where one person has power over the other, either physically (like using a weapon) or non-physically (like a boss and his/her subordinate) cannot be said to be "freely consensual."
This implies that the party with less power couldn't have initiated the relationship. It implies that the attraction couldn't have been mutual. It implies that 2 people can't have an adult interaction where turning down the more powerful party instantly turns into recriminations. It implies that people can't be anything but cardboard cuttouts.
I agree with this in principle, but if you include wealth as power, it gets very messy. "Would you date Jeff Bezos?" "Sure!" "Would you date Jeff Bezos if he wasn't a billionaire?" "Well..." Sure, he could use that money to coerce people into sleeping with him, but him expressing interest in a person, them turning him down, and him just moving on doesn't sound like coercion to me.
And, yes, I think Clinton crossed that line, simply because he could fire her if she turned him down.