Opening statements in Donald Trump's hush-money trial began Monday. A prosecutor said the case is about a "criminal conspiracy and a coverup."
  • Opening statements began in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial on Monday.
  • Trump faces 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in the historic case.
  • “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a coverup,” ADA Matthew Colangelo said.

Opening arguments in Donald Trump’s historic criminal trial got underway on Monday with a prosecutor describing the case as being about a “criminal conspiracy,” while a defense attorney for the former president likened hush-money payments to “democracy.”

“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a coverup,” Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo told the 12-person Manhattan jury in the hush-money trial.

Prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office allege Trump illegally falsified business records by covering up a $130,000 hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    2618·
    2 months ago

    Just a quick note how is it consensual? How is a sexual relationship with that vast of a power differential truly consensual? An intern versus the most powerful man in the world? People need to stop talking about that as if they were star-crossed lovers it’s fucking gross.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        214·
        2 months ago

        If you want to ignore literally any context, sure.

        edit: here’s the context:

        Consent is when two adults freely agree.

        Any relationship where one person has power over the other, either physically (like using a weapon) or non-physically (like a boss and his/her subordinate) cannot be said to be “freely consensual.”

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          This implies that the party with less power couldn’t have initiated the relationship. It implies that the attraction couldn’t have been mutual. It implies that 2 people can’t have an adult interaction where turning down the more powerful party instantly turns into recriminations. It implies that people can’t be anything but cardboard cuttouts.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          3·
          2 months ago

          I agree with this in principle, but if you include wealth as power, it gets very messy. “Would you date Jeff Bezos?” “Sure!” “Would you date Jeff Bezos if he wasn’t a billionaire?” “Well…” Sure, he could use that money to coerce people into sleeping with him, but him expressing interest in a person, them turning him down, and him just moving on doesn’t sound like coercion to me.

          And, yes, I think Clinton crossed that line, simply because he could fire her if she turned him down.