Donald Trump has not been accused of paying for sex, but several supporters protesting outside of his trial on Monday wanted to make it clear that they have. It seems the crowds that come out to protest the persecution of the former president are getting smaller, and weirder

Today, however, the crowd had thinned to a handful of true believers and true characters – those who don’t leave their house without a giant flag, a bullhorn, and an offensive T-shirt they made themselves.

It’s not only that the crowds are getting smaller, it’s that they are getting significantly weirder.

Of the people willing to step up to a microphone outside the courthouse and defend Mr Trump for allegedly paying off a porn star to hide his alleged affair from prospective voters, two offered something of a wild defence: that they opposed the charges because they too had paid for sex on more than one occasion, and assumed most men had done the same.

It didn’t matter to them that Mr Trump is not being accused of paying for sex, but rather accused of having embarked on several extra-marital affairs and falsifying business records over payments made to hide those affairs from the voting public in 2016.

  • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    FFS he is not in trouble for paying for sex. He is in trouble for paying hush money using campaign funds. Good lord, conservatives are so brainwashed

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

            The Stormy Daniels case is also about election interference. He interfered in the election by paying to conceal critical information that may have changed voters’ minds.

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

                It’s not in the charges, it’s the nature of the case. This isn’t my opinion but that of legal expert from the podcast Legal Scrutiny. And they know their shit.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I could see conviction in this case being used as evidence in the election fraud trial, but he’s not being tried by a federal prosecutor. It’s a criminal trail brought up by the State of NY.

    • NABDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Just like Clinton wasn’t in trouble for the blowjob. He was in trouble for lying about it under oath. But everyone who talks about it now says he got impeached for a blowjob.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s exactly why Republicans cried “purgery trap” when people wanted to have Trump testify as president. They knew what they did and just assume Democrats would somehow “force” Trump to lie about something completely unrelated…

        The Clinton investigation was over real estate and somehow made it’s way over to blow jobs.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly. He got impeached for lying about questioning unrelated to the investigation on him after the actual subject of the investigation bore no fruit.

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, this is right out of the liberal playbook. They’ve been screaming for 30 years that Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. He wasn’t. He was impeached for purjury, trying to cover up the blowjob. Same shit different party.