House Speaker Mike Johnson describes himself as a Christian before anything else. He has said his “faith informs everything I do.” He has told people curious about his views to “pick up a Bible.” His wife reportedly runs a counseling service whose operating agreement, which he himself notarized, states, “We believe and the Bible teaches that any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery…is sinful and offensive to God.” He has said he and his son use a software program called Covenant Eyes to ensure neither is looking at porn.

Given all this, you may think that Johnson would not be comfortable showing up to a criminal trial to defend a guy who allegedly had an affair with an adult film star (according to the adult film star anyway, though Trump denies it), paid her to stay quiet about the alleged affair, and then was accused of covering up said payment. But you would think wrong!

On Tuesday, Johnson attended Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan, where—prior to the proceedings getting underway—the congressional leader nodded approvingly at Trump from behind a metal barrier, like a groupie at his favorite band’s concert.

  • Cincinnatus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    há 6 meses

    It’s about falsifying business records although they still haven’t said what the actual crime was and Trump has always denied the sex allegations. Stormy even lost a defamation case against Trump and owes him 500k. The MSM tries to get you to think they slept together though

    • ghterve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      há 6 meses

      How do you think they just skipped the parts where they would state the actual alleged crimes? They in fact didn’t skip that part.

        • nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          há 6 meses

          It’s falsifying business records, which becomes a felony when combined with it being a campaign finance violation.

          Not as strong of a case as the docs one but it is a crime.

          • Cincinnatus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            há 6 meses

            Right, that’s why the FEC and Braggs office declined to prosecute the case already, and then wouldn’t ya know, campaign season rolls around and all the sudden it’s being prosecuted. I’m just not that naive. I see it for what it is although I do expect a guilty verdict to come and then to get overturned on appeal

            • ghterve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              há 6 meses

              You’re just imagining facts that are convenient to what you want to think but are not true. This case has been in the works for years. It didn’t just happen recently all of the sudden because it is election season.

              • Cincinnatus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                há 6 meses

                Yeah, it was in the works before and 2 courts declined to prosecute it, one being the very court that it’s being tried in now, the other being the Federal Election Commission. I’m not imagining anything. That’s just the facts bud

      • Cincinnatus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        há 6 meses

        So what? Even if he did falsify them (which they failed to prove) statute of limitations already ran up. They’re trying to claim he falsified them to influence the outcome of the election but that’s impossible considering that they weren’t labeled as a legal expense until after the election was over. Facts matter

        • ghterve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          há 6 meses

          Again, do you think they can just ignore things like statute of limitations and proceed anyway just because they don’t like Trump and are out to get him? The case would not be in progress if that claim of yours was accurate. The charges were indeed filled before the statute of limitations expired. This is a real court with real rules that apply and matter. It isn’t a clown sham court like Trump wants you to think it is. Facts do indeed matter. Stop fabricating them (or believing someone else’s fabrications) to fit a narrative that you want to be true.

          • Cincinnatus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            há 6 meses

            The statute of limitations ran up on the bookkeeping charge, so Bragg claimed that the false bookkeeping was done in order to hide another supposed crime which allows him to try and make a felony out of it, but they haven’t proved the first or second crime. Some say the second crime was election interference but the problem with that theory is that Trump didn’t sign the bookkeeping documents until well after the election was already over, so that wouldn’t make any sense. We’ve basically just gotta wait until the judge gives his directions to the jury to find out what this second crime is

          • Cincinnatus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            há 6 meses

            You obviously don’t understand how it works. If you have a corrupt jusge and prosecutor, you can absolutely bring cases to court that doesn’t belong in court. They have the power to do so. The judge doesn’t have some boss standing over his shoulder telling him what he’s allowed to do or not do. They’ve got the power to just about anything they want. The judge can decide what evidence to allow and what evidence not to allow and right now, the judge doesn’t want the defense to allow an expert witness to testify and he has that power. The jury could decide in the end that Trumps not guilty and the judge even has the power to override the jury verdict and impose a sentence anyway. Sure, it’s not ethical, but he can certainly do it. The powers above him don’t come into play until the case is over and there is appeal made by the defense, and everything the judge did could be overturned. Our Justice system isn’t perfect at all and a judge having that much power is a big problem in my opinion and it largely goes unnoticed most of the time because like you, a lot people think that if it’s the court system it must be legit, but there’s more people waking up to it now that they’re using against political opponents so we’ll see if something changes down the road but as it stands a corrupt judge and prosecutor can destroy a completely innocent person with no problem