557
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 37 points 7 months ago

TBF, I wouldn't want people to be persecuted just for saying out loud that they did a crime. Imagine if I went outside today and shouted, "My house doesn't have a secondary fire escape and is therefore outside building regulations!". Should I then be investigated for committing a crime, or should someone just tell me to shut up and stop shouting in the middle of the road?

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

Oddly specific, weird example

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 10 points 7 months ago

Maybe this person should be investigated

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Haha yeah you'd expect an example to be something somewhat close to a thing that people would actually say.

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Home ownership be like

[-] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 7 months ago

Haha definitely not relevant to me 😅

I was just struggling to think of an example of a crime which wouldn't warrant investigation. Flying Squid has a good example further down of confessing to a murder which had just happened, which would need to be investigated probably

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

I would say it depends on the type of crime and the amount of detail. If you say out loud, "I murdered John Smith last Tuesday" and John Smith had been murdered last Tuesday, I think you should probably get investigated for the murder of John Smith.

If you say "I've had sex with a prostitute" but don't go further than that in terms of any details, definitely not.

[-] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 7 months ago

Hence why I picked such a banal example :)

[-] heavy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Slow down, I think nuance might not be well understood by this person.

this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
557 points (97.4% liked)

News

23406 readers
3324 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS