Hush money is a bribe. ?
In this case, the alleged single sexual act happened when Barron Trump was 4 weeks old.? Barron graduated from high school last month.
Ten years ago, a porn star threatened to accuse him of having sex with her eight years earlier if he didn't pay her not to make that accusation.? He paid a bribe for her not to.? As with many blackmailers, they don't go away and come back for more until they are exposed.
Ed
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster=
[email protected]> wrote:
Ed,
I don't know why you think this happened 18 years ago. It happened
before the 2016 election. So that's less than 10 years ago. I'm
talking about when the hush money was paid. There's no evidence
that Stormy Daniels blackmailed Trump.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/8/2024 6:16 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
This allegedly happened eighteen years ago.? Has Trump ever
admitted it?? How can anyone prove that someone had private sex
with another person 18 years ago, a birth?
Aside from Mrs. Trump, who cares?? How many people would not
vote for a candidate based on a prostitute's claim that she had
sex with him once, 18 years ago?
She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible that the accusation
would destroy his marriage.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
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.
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
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.
_._
