Ed,
Trump though that his adultery was immoral and that it would keep
some people from voting for him. That's why he paid Stormy to keep
quiet about it. Then he falsified records to try and hide the hush
money payments. That was both illegal and immoral.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
How does anyone know what his motive was, and whether he committed
adultery (neither illegal nor unusual with presidential
candidates), or if do, shat his family thought about it.? As for
euphemistic journal entries, for blackmail or bribery, those
aren't unprecedented, either.? Look up "facilitation payments,"
for example.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
David,
There's nothing morally neutral about covering up adultery
to influence the outcome of a U.S. election. It is purely
morally bad. I also disagree that law and justice have
nothing in common. They have a lot in common.
On 6/8/2024 1:48 PM, David Smith wrote:
Whether a thought or an action is judged morally neutral or good or bad is up to one's understanding of morality, which, especially in these angry times, is practically up for grabs. Today, people are likely to believe whatever their information sources tell them is true. As for law, I think we'd agree that law and justice have nothing inherently in common.
Celeste wrote:
? In the case of Trump's hush money scheme he was both morally and legally guilty.
On 6/7/2024 6:50 PM, David Smith wrote:
Laws are likely to be sticks for tripping up people and beating them. The distinction between laws for protecting people from murderers and laws written to dispose of enemies is not always clear. Both exist, which is one reason why the legal system is a nasty thing to be caught up in. Moral innocence and legal guilt are likely to be the same thing.
_._
