360
Hush money isn't illegal, it's 'democracy,' Trump lawyer says in defiant trial opening statements
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
360 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Consent is when two adults agree.
If you want to ignore literally any context, sure.
edit: here's the context:
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."
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.
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.
Consent is NOT when your boss implies or promises or conditions something.