• tsonfeir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think that when we are punishing a first time offender, we have to consider the motivation Behind the crime. Was it just to get rich? I think that’s something we can all understand. But was it to cover up treason? I don’t think something like that comes with any leniency.

    • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      It was no different than fucking Clinton lying about getting a blowjob in office.

      Dude cheated on his wife and was trying to hide it to get elected.

      Nothing illegal about that.

      Just like with Clinton and Nixon though, it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.

      I think you might be conflating this with the election interference case, similar but different.

          • tsonfeir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            30 days ago

            If the purpose of the crime committed is nefarious, then I think the punishment, regardless of a first time offender, should be appropriate.

            Let’s say I’m convicted of trying to cover up hush money. If that money was used to silence someone from telling the world about me breaking the speed limit, it’s not a “big deal.”

            But if I’m trying to cover up something big… like an act that is potentially another felony… than it’s a big deal.

            Does that make sense?