honestly I think "hush money" is more powerful for normies understanding the narrative. "Paying off a porn star you had an affair with" is something that SOUNDS like it'd be illegal even tho its not, while "using business funds to pay campaign expenses" sounds like a mixup even tho it's very illegal
It's interesting to see which outlets still frame it as "hush money" and which, like the WaPo here, frame it as a conspiracy to influence/corrupt the 2016 election. It seems like the latter framing, which is what made them felonies, is the more important and correct one.
it makes sense to people because it harkens back to an innocent time (2014 and every year before that) where a Presidential candidate getting caught cheating on his wife with a porn star would've instantly ended his career bsky.app/profile/ryan...
Yes, and if your opponents want to sputter "b-b-but it's not technically illegal to pay off a porn star you had an affair with" and correct you, well ask Hillary Clinton how well that strategy works. bsky.app/profile/asht...
OP has a reasonable point but one minor yet genuinely difficult issue from an editorial standpoint is that trump is facing two trials on influencing/corrupting the election (atlanta, j6), so hush-money is a useful shorthand to differentiate it from that perspective
If I find myself titillated by Donald Trump having sex I will immediately check myself into a psychiatric clinic for observation, diagnosis and hopefully therapeutic options.
It continues to be very strange that what occurred between Stormy Daniels and DJT is referred to as an "affair" when it was, at best, an appointment. From the description I read, it was more like a brief kidnapping.
Again, Republicans know how to do this really well! The narrative they created around Bill Clinton's impeachment wasn't that he lied under oath, although those were the technical charges. It's that he had an affair with a young intern. Guess which one stuck?
