980

Devout Christian Mike Johnson shows up to hush money trial to defend a guy accused of cheating on his wife with a porn star (www.vanityfair.com)

submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

124 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] zeppo@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

That’s not at all what the Maher article says. She said she wasn’t coerced, not that they didn’t have sex. It’s also not the point of the trial.

[-] Cincinnatus@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

I never said that it was Mahr she said she didn't have sex to. Word for word, this is the letter she signed in 2018.

To Whom It May Concern:

Over the past few weeks I have been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago.

The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 20011, 2016, 2017 and now again in 2018. I am not denying this affair because I was paid “hush money” as has been reported in overseas owned tabloids. I am denying this affair because it never happened. 

I will have no further comment on this matter. Please feel free to check me out on Instagram at @thestormydaniels.

Thank you,

Stormy Daniels

[-] zeppo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

What is the source of this?

[-] ghterve@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

She did sign that letter. But she had previously said they did have the affair (and described it in detail). And shortly after she signed that letter, she admitted to Anderson Cooper the letter was a lie. She explained that she lied because... Get this... She was concerned about legal complications because she had accepted the hush money to not reveal the affair.

She also admitted that statement was a lie during her recent testimony while under oath. Signing that statement was not likely a crime. But if she had lied under oath this month, that would be a crime.

So, she was clearly lying at some point. Why do you choose to believe the much less plausible option that she was truthful the one time in 2018 but she was lying all the other times? There's no logical explanation for that, yet the opposite (lied in the 2018 statement you posted) has much more logical support. The only reason I can see to believe her only that one time when she had reason to lie is because it lets you believe Trump's lies that you really wish were true.

[-] Cincinnatus@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago

Well why do believe that Cohen is honest now, but lied every other time in the past? Stormy came out the third time and said they slept together again to try and get some money, even telling her attorney to hurry it up before the election or she'll lose her leverage to get paid. The point is that her and Cohen both just aren't credible witnesses at all. They're both making a living on Trump being guilty so they've got everything to gain from saying whatever they need to say to keep the money flowing

this post was submitted on 14 May 2024

980 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19072 readers

1881 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News