politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Even the word "affair" seems stretching it. Wade and his wife were separated, living separately, Willis was single. It's not like they were sneaking around. They had a consensual relationship.
Honestly, the only real problem I have with the whole issue, unless it's true that they were using taxpayer money (which I'm doubtful about), is that Willis made a statement about not having sex with employees if elected because her predecessor was accused of sexual harassment and other sexual issues. I'm sorry, I'm trying to find a link to it but I can't find one. One of the late night shows last night showed the footage of her saying it.
But being a hypocrite about something you said before you got elected should have no effect on the Trump case.
Oh, v the whole "taxpayer money" thing is nonsense. They aren't saying they improperly used government funds. They're saying that their paychecks come from the government, so it's taxpayer money. It was their salary.
I didn't think there was anything to it. Like I said, my only problem here is that she's a hypocrite. But she wouldn't be the first lawyer who's a hypocrite.
The only question I’d have is whether the salary that was agreed upon for the prosecutor was established before the relationship, if she even had any say in it at all. Otherwise it might be fair to argue she unfairly bumped his pay, meaning some taxpayer money unfairly went to his pocket.
Not that I really care all that much. Even if the relationship started before she says it did, and even if some of his $650,000 payment was unjustly given (not that I believe all of that)…aren’t we having a trial about obstruction of the democratic process here?
It’s more that this whole thing is ridiculous, given the stakes of the trial, than it being actually upsetting.
I'd be super surprised if she was able to set his salary. Government workers usually have pretty narrow bands.
It was on the daily show. I think it's the second story in the clip.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bLgofqqWi9Y
Thanks!