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.
I mean. It is, actually. Do you just not know jack shit or are you just talking shit?
The trial literally isn’t about if Trump had sex with a porn star; in fact, it basically presupposes that he did.
The trial is about if he illegally covered up the hush money he paid her afterwards
Okay. Since you took the bait: Do you just not know jack shit or are you just talking shit?
Because you are talking like you actually don’t know jack shit.
Tell me, what are the arguments of Trumps defense?
Mostly specious, dissembling, goalpost-shifting, mendacious, and virulent, like their client.
(Sorry, you just walked into that with the baited question.)
I mean if all you have is a non-answer, you can probably just jerk yourself off, no need to involve me.
What is the answer you are looking for? Your rhetorical attack question was lazy so you got the answer it deserved.