• Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    ·
    5 months ago

    The “hush money” framing is such a cutesy, bullshit spin to neuter the actual repeated and unapologetic fraud here. Basic human and business ethics concerns to side for a moment, It’s purely fraud against the American people without remorse and it’s actual election interference.

    You wouldn’t say that a serial killer that stabs and kills their victims is on trial for “night night pokes”. How was this allowed to get casually accepted like this without challenge from society?

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      “My neighbor in Tel Aviv is in jail for murder, or, as we call it, enhanced tickling.”

      -Colonel Erran Morrad (Sacha baron cohen)

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t even know if they care about the -ism, they want a pyramid system with them above the law. Like Russia with Putin and his clique of friendly oligarchs who can do whatever they want, until they displease him, which is when suddenly they’ll get arrested for “corruption”.

    • suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well, some people enjoy my night night pokes. Your momma, for instance. …sorry

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can you expand more on the election interference part?

      Totally understand inciting an insurrection to be interference, but using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use.

          • nxdefiant@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            More to the point, the paperwork crimes would have been misdemeanors if he hadn’t been doing it all for the explicit purpose of influencing an election. That’s what made them felonies.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah, if he was upfront about things then there would be no criminal case

            However saying he set up shell companies to carry out falsification isn’t moralising

              • ssladam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I think you misread. He said “disguising”, which only means intent to keep hidden by masking the truth.

                • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The only disgusting (immoral) part of this is Trump cheating on his wife.

                  Everything else could have been achieved perfectly legally (i.e. without disgust) if Trump had been smart.

                  I don’t want to disgust you, but “intending to keep things hidden by masking the truth” is practically the definition of politics.

                  • suction@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Dude, you have trouble reading. It says “disguising”. Your side really fails at the most basic human functions, over and over again.

              • suction@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                5 months ago

                I don’t think anyone is still naive enough to think you can win over Republicunts. The way to stop Trump is to battle voter apathy and tear down barriers to vote, because the majority will not vote for Trump if they get to cast their votes.

                  • suction@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    I can find both opinions: Helps Trump / helps Biden, so probably nobody the fuck knows. I am still sure that the reason Trump won in 2016 was too many Democrat voters being put off by Clinton + the “Bernie Bro” crowd staying home.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              5 months ago

              Others here have rejected those assertions.

              I have no idea if that statement is true. I just wanted to illustrate how unhelpful your comment was.

                  • Snapz@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Happy for you to keep expending useless energy here so deep in a threaded comment. Please, do reply again, everyone is interested and meaningfully impressed by your intellect.

      • krakenfury@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        That was not the legal issue of the case, though. Campaigns have to be very transparent with how they spend contributions, for obvious reasons, and it was easy to prove that this appropriation was obfuscated.

      • villainy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use

        It is.

        What he did was try to hide payments made to benefit his campaign. Would you consider illegally financing a campaign to be election interference?

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not just the financing, but hiding the Stormy Daniels story during the election. They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the “grab them by the pussy” video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign). THAT’S where the election interference came into play.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the “grab them by the pussy” video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign)

            Isn’t this part a normal election strategy in the US? And not illegal itself?

            • Wiz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              If it’s something of a monetary value that benefits the campaign, it must be reported. And it definitely has a monetary value, since he paid money for it.

            • spongebue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Honestly, I’m not sure how exactly the law is written. I believe that was a factor out of several that raised the misdemeanor of falsification into a felony (by doing so to conceal a crime). The judge’s instructions to the jury was that they needed to be unanimous that a crime was being concealed, but they didn’t have to agree on which one(s). Unless some members of the jury go to the media (for their sake, I sure hope they don’t) and that gets brought up, we’ll probably never know which way that wind was blowing.

              • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Thanks.

                In the future I’m sure politicians on all sides will be paying people to keep certain facts quiet. I was just trying to confirm what is legal and what is illegal.