You don't say... I was sure he was going to admit to being a pedophile and child rapist.
Just goes to show ya, you can never be sure about these things.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
270 points (98.2% liked)
World News
54255 readers
2904 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Since when is "i didn't know" a get out of jail free card?
Depends on what you don't know and when you didn't know it.
All crimes have requirements. Most crimes require that the person "know" or "intended" to engage in the criminal behavior. Sometimes the knowledge requirement is subjective, but mostly it's objective...i.e. what would a reasonable person have known under the same circumstances. Which means that being drunk or otherwise impaired is rarely a defense to a crime requiring knowledge or awareness. Another exception when knowledge doesn't matter is statutory rape of a minor in the US; you can legitimately think they are of age when you screw... But if they are a minor it's rape regardless.
The knowledge requirement pertains to factual knowledge of the circumstance (i.e. you reasonably knew the property wasn't yours when you took it). Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Everyone has implied knowledge of every law as soon as it's codified. Fuckin' bullshit, especially the younger and poorer you are.
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
So, he lied, as expected.
It's okay if you lie to Congress about this one subject, and several others. They don't really want to know. They're just trying to get re-elected. This is one more reason we need term limits for Congress.
Doubt he lied about the second part at least. He probably did make sure all the ones he was with were at least 18. Considering that Trump's admin has the Epstein files, they'd totally run him over if they had evidence otherwise, and they definitely could easily know if he lied or not on that. He knows they don't, that's why he testified.
Epstein was pretty careful not to talk about actual crimes in a way that would have been recorded. There are numerous instances of him saying they need to take a conversation offline.
Now that Bill and Hillary have testified, it's time for Trump and Melania.
Ok sure
Just like when he told the entire USA “I did not. have. sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinsky…”
But then he actually did.
That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Seriously, though, he stated later that he was interpreting the definition of "sexual relations" to mean that he had touched her in sexual ways. Apparently he was only ever on the receiving end, and therefore his claim was that she had "sexual relations" with him, but not vice versa. In his view, his response followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law. He wasn't found guilty of perjury, so apparently he wasn't entirely wrong, legally speaking.
Now ... Is he a POS who cheated on his wife? Maybe. The Republican rumor mill (AKA Rush Limbaugh) claimed for years that they had an open marriage and were both sleeping with other people. That's the sort of thing that a lot of people are okay with now, but it was not talked about in polite society in the '90s. I've always thought that if Hillary was willing to stand by him after everything that came out, then we probably shouldn't judge him on her behalf.
Well there was the whole cigar thing. Either way, we know he’s wiling to lie to the world.
Since when is consensually sticking your dick in someone's mouth not a sexual touch?? "Sexual" is literally the only way to describe that.
I don't know if it makes sense to view their marriage through the lens of normal romance. I see them as having devoted their lives to building a political dynasty, and I think they wouldn't get divorced unless it served that end.
I agree. People get married for all kinds of reasons. They may have married for political power, and they may well have an open marriage. Nobody really knows what happens in anyone else's relationship.
Down vote away but I've always agreed with Clinton's definition. If your buddy bragged that they had sex with somebody and it turned out they only got a BJ, then I'd call them a liar.
But if she turned out to be a minor, "my buddy" is still a child rapist. The whole point of the phrase "sexual relations" is to make it inexact enough to include all sexual acts. How anyone can believe someone getting their dick sucked is uninvolved in the act is just baffling.
Your buddy would have also bragged about the fact that he used her pussy as a humidor instead of trying to talk about the definition of is.
Haha no surprise there. I said a few weeks ago in a comment this is what will happen and got massively down voted. Because if he admitted that he knew of the crimes, then he is 1. guilty for doing nothing about it despite being in power or adjacent to powerful people, or 2. is a pedo himself. So all he can do is say he knew nothing in order to save his own ass.
The issue with doing this under oath is that if any evidence comes out to the contrary it's an easy conviction. Not that he hasn't weasled around lying under oath before, but it is higher stakes than just making a public statement.
Well that's depressing because it means he thinks the fascism will win.
He's a part of the system cabal, of course he knows what the aim is
??
It either means he legitimately didn't know anything or that he doesn't think there is any evidence to support he did know/did anything. I'm pretty sure if they had anything concrete on him, the Trump admin would have gone after him, simply to divert away from everything theyre doing.
Bill is lying, trump raped kids, Bill was there, he needs to be arrested.
Far as I'm concerned, those two could share a cozy cell.
view more: next ›