this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
358 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2150 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
358
Hush money isn't illegal, it's 'democracy,' Trump lawyer says in defiant trial opening statements (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PorradaVFR@lemmy.world 178 points 7 months ago (7 children)

Unfortunately for him the case is actually not about paying hush money, it’s about lying about the payments in company documents and its direct impact on the election.

Sure you can give money to people, the lying about it on financial/campaign finance documents is what he’s being tried for.

Of course the media keeps calling it “hush money trial” which it is not.

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@kbin.social 61 points 7 months ago

It’s because Hush Money Trial is pithy. It is succinct yet distinct. Fraud Trial would be a great name if there weren’t several more of them to differentiate from, and Election Fraud Trial Relating to the Disclosure of Hush Money Payments regarding a Mushroom Shaped Erection doesn’t fit in the headline.

Erection Fraud Trial does have a ring to it, though.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Also, you shouldn’t believe Michael Cohen because he’s a liar who went to jail! (for making and then lying about illegal hush money payments for Trump, lol)

Or Stormy Daniels who is a porn star who has a grudge! (yeah, the porn star Trump made illegal hush money payments to after sleeping with her, lol)

Besides, none of what they say matters! (none of the facts matter? lol!)

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Also, you should believe trump because he’s a shining beacon of truth and who’s honesty is beyond reproach.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago

That's not true.

He's being charged with lying on his payments and that being connected to another crime, because that radically upscales the lying crime. The other crime in question genuinely is hush money.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

I'm partial to Trial for the crime he committed and his former lawyer went to prison for covering up.

I agree, it's not as pithy.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is that he's denying that he was the one who had the documents altered.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

“The buck stops at my paid employees, not me”…

[–] PapaStevesy@midwest.social 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Good luck finding one that actually got paid.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 7 months ago

Wow, that would be an amazing outcome, if his stinginess made him the only employee, everyone else being a contractor that he can't throw under the bus correctly.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

They're calling it a "hush money" trial because it stands out more than "falsifying documents" trial, and that's not an unreasonable thing to do when Trump has so many different trials going on at once that is kind of hard for the public to keep it all straight.

As for the defense attorney, this is just the opening arguments, he's laying down track and trying to get certain facts on the jury's minds right up front.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

The case may not be, but another one should be maybe. Paying hush money to hide something from the voters is fraud. He's trying to deprive Americans of the information they need to make an informed decision. It's perpetrating a fraud on the US people.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 93 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Can we kill this whole concept that money is fucking speech? Shit like this is part of the reason why citizens united is a fucking train wreck.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could pay your bills by just blabbing on the phone to your landlord for an hour? Money is speech after all.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 18 points 7 months ago

The only people who ever pushed it as a concept were the rich, and it was never agreed upon by any of the masses. It was agreed upon by a group of judges that were likely bought by corporate interests, and most of them still sit on our highest court.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 5 points 7 months ago

"Money talks."

"Whoa. What's it say?"

"Not literally, ya dope."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] youngGoku@lemmy.world 79 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Remember when Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex?

It's not about the sex it's about the lies.

[–] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Consent is when two adults agree.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

Consent is NOT when your boss implies or promises or conditions something.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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."

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 65 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • That didn't happen.
  • And if it did, it wasn't that bad. <-- We are here
  • And if it was, that's not a big deal.
  • And if it is, that's not my fault.
  • And if it was, I didn't mean it.
  • And if I did You deserved it.
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure we're way further down that list

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It's more of a circle really

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 2 points 7 months ago

It jumps around a lot

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

We’re at step 1

The problem is the falsifying records to hide the payments

[–] frezik@midwest.social 56 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"Democracy is when you give money to porn stars" - Julius Ceasar

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

When you give money to cover up a time when you awkwardly, briefly, floundered your body on a sex worker.

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Mentioned it to his best friend, Brutus, as he was crossing the Rubicon.

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Im I wrong to think that we (the media) should stop calling it a "hush-money" case? I think its a poor move to put more focus on the moral issues of him spending a night with a porn star and paying them to keep quiet than to focus on the fact that he falsified business records to save face during a presidential campaign.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

No...and it's like Trump already won the court of opinion due to it. It's terrible messaging.

No one really cares that he banged a prostitute. Clinton was all over that too...We DO care that he committed fraud.

But reading through this...well...who cares really: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/22/trump-hush-money-trial-charges/

Instead of framing this as Trump is a terrible person who did terrible things, it's worded like he tripped on a very complex piece of legislature.

TL;DR: You made an important point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dasenboy@lemmy.ml 28 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The hours practicing that Hitler look at the mirror....

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's him, just toddler grunting as he's shitting himself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

Between practicing his Hitler gaze, sleeping in court, and bouts of shitting his diapers, it's no wonder he hasn't found much time to campaign.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Wrong...he's just trying real hard to hold it

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

One of the best parts of this story is Mr Art of the Deal, the master negotiator payed a porn star to keep quiet and she wrote book.

[–] bradv@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago

I like this take

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

I think they're confusing democracy from capitalism

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's not democracy, but pay for play, hush money, and an overall culture of bribery is more American than apple pie ever was.

The prominence of Trump is just a symptom of America's long running greed disease of putting capital miles above people.

If we had altered our economy and culture not to worship at the alter of sociopathic avarice and reckless growth/metastasis, Donald Trump would have gone to jail before he was a game show host, let alone POTUS.

I'm voting for Biden to keep my conscience clean but without hope, because the sad truth is, Donald Trump absolutely represents what America is in all it's grotesque, sociopathic, schadenfreude reveling, toxic hyper-individualistic, inhuman glory.

He's like a cartoon embodiment of who we actually are as a society in practice, and why I can't stand this place, a nepo-wealth bully obsessed with wealth hoarding that's got his, knows that means he makes the rules, and fuck you 🇺🇸

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

"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.

Interestingly, in describing the reason for the coverup of the $130,000 payment to Daniels, the prosecutor did not refer to an "alleged" sexual encounter with the adult film star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

During his opening statements, Colangelo told jurors about a similar scheme to silence ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, who has said that she had a nearly year-long sexual relationship with Trump beginning in 2006.

In contrast, Colangelo referred to the National Enquirer paying a Manhattan doorman $30,000 earlier in 2015 to "catch and kill" a story about "an alleged illegitimate child" of Trump that lived in the building.

"She's made hundreds of thousands of dollars," Blanche said without mentioning the "Make America Horny Again" strip club tour that the porn star embarked on after news of the hush-money scandal broke.

The original article contains 1,180 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

All trials should be available to the public (video, transcript, etc). Body cams on cops and court cameras, transparency is necessary for justice.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yes, let's talk upfront about how the system is failing.

[–] resin85@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

meanwhile, the ex-president can't attend the hearing on the unlicensed bond he claimed to secure for the nine-figure fraud judgment against him because he's in a different court on trial for charges of criminal falsification of records to influence an election

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Just like corporate donations are "speech". Some Citizens United logic here.

load more comments
view more: next ›