I asked Grok to compare and contrast Donald Trump’s accounting felonies with Bill Clinton’s perjury in their respective attempts to cover up their extramarital affairs.

Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies for trying to cover up his extramarital affair. Bill Clinton lied under oath to try to cover up his extramarital affair. Please compare and contrast these two things. Also, other than their own respective families, were their any real victims to these crimes? I’m a libertarian, and I believe that if there’s no real victim, it shouldn’t be a crime. Also, I think it’s extremely important to hold the left and the right to the same set of standards. It seems to be that there are people on both political sides who are judging the opposing side tougher than they are judging their own side. I’m not a lawyer or legal expert, but I do try to have a high set of moral values.

Your question raises important issues about consistency in applying moral and legal standards across political divides, especially from a libertarian perspective that emphasizes victimless crimes. Let’s compare and contrast the cases of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton regarding their respective legal issues tied to extramarital affairs, evaluate the presence of “real victims,” and address the broader implications of political bias and moral consistency.

Legal Context: In May 2024, Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York. These charges stemmed from a $130,000 hush-money payment made by his attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) to suppress information about an alleged 2006 extramarital affair during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The falsification of business records was charged as a felony because prosecutors argued it was done with intent to commit or conceal another crime—specifically, violating New York election law by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election through an unreported campaign contribution (the hush money).

The 34 counts included 11 falsified invoices, 11 falsified checks, and 12 falsified ledger entries.

Trump was convicted on all counts. Sentencing was initially scheduled but faced delays due to appeals and his status as president-elect (as of November 2024). In December 2024, a New York judge upheld the conviction but sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, effectively imposing no penalties like jail time or fines, citing concerns about punishing a sitting president.

The case is under appeal, with Trump’s team arguing prosecutorial overreach, bias, and constitutional issues.

The affair itself was consensual, occurring years before the campaign. The moral issue centers on deception (to voters and his spouse) and the use of financial manipulation to influence an election.

From a libertarian perspective, the affair is a private matter, but the falsification raises questions about transparency in campaign finance and voter trust.

Critics on the left argue the conviction shows Trump’s willingness to break laws for personal gain, undermining electoral integrity.

Supporters on the right claim the prosecution was politically motivated “lawfare” by a Democratic district attorney (Alvin Bragg) to tarnish Trump’s reputation, especially since the case hinged on a novel legal theory elevating a misdemeanor to a felony.

Legal Context: In 1998, Bill Clinton faced a perjury charge stemming from a civil lawsuit by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual harassment from 1991. During a deposition, Clinton denied having “sexual relations” with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, an affair that occurred in 1995–1996. This led to an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, which expanded into Clinton’s conduct with Lewinsky.

Clinton was accused of perjury (lying under oath in the Jones deposition) and obstruction of justice (encouraging Lewinsky to lie and conceal evidence).

The House of Representatives impeached Clinton in December 1998 on one count of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, based on his false statements and efforts to influence testimony.

In February 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed for conviction and removal from office.

As part of a settlement in the Jones case, Clinton paid $850,000. Separately, he reached an agreement with Starr’s office in January 2001, admitting to giving false testimony, paying a $25,000 fine, and having his Arkansas law license suspended for five years. He was not criminally convicted.

The affair with Lewinsky was consensual but involved a power imbalance (president vs. intern). The moral issue lies in lying under oath, undermining the judicial process, and attempting to conceal the affair, which betrayed public trust and his family.

From a libertarian perspective, the affair itself is private, but perjury and obstruction interfere with the legal system’s integrity, even in a civil case.

Critics on the right argued Clinton’s actions showed a lack of character and eroded trust in public office, justifying impeachment as a check on abuse of power.

Supporters on the left contended the investigation was a politically driven witch hunt by Republicans, focusing on private conduct irrelevant to governance, and that impeachment was disproportionate for lying about a consensual affair.

Nature of Conduct: Both cases involve attempts to conceal extramarital affairs (Trump via hush money, Clinton via lying under oath). The affairs themselves were consensual and not illegal.

Legal Violations: Both involved deceptive actions that violated the law—Trump falsified records to hide payments, Clinton lied under oath to hide the affair. Each case escalated because the cover-up was deemed to affect a broader public interest (election integrity for Trump, judicial integrity for Clinton).

Political Polarization: Both cases were deeply divisive, with accusations of partisan overreach. Trump’s prosecution was criticized as Democratic lawfare; Clinton’s impeachment was seen as Republican overreach.

Moral Questions: Both reflect personal failings (infidelity, deception) that became public scandals, raising questions about trust in leadership. Libertarians might argue the private nature of the affairs should limit legal scrutiny absent clear harm.

No Direct Criminal Conviction for Clinton: While Trump was convicted, Clinton was not criminally convicted, though he admitted to false testimony and faced civil penalties.

Legal Framework: Trump’s case was a state criminal prosecution resulting in felony convictions, while Clinton’s was a federal impeachment process (political, not criminal) with a separate civil settlement. Clinton faced no criminal trial, only penalties via agreement.

Nature of Crime: Trump’s falsification was proactive (creating false records), tied to campaign finance and election law. Clinton’s perjury was reactive (lying in a deposition), tied to a civil lawsuit and judicial process.

Consequences: Trump’s conviction carried no immediate penalties due to his presidential status, but it remains a legal stain with ongoing appeals. Clinton was acquitted but paid fines, lost his law license temporarily, and faced lasting reputational damage.

Context of Power: Clinton’s affair involved a subordinate (Lewinsky), raising ethical concerns about power dynamics, though it was consensual. Trump’s affair with Daniels was transactional, with no clear power imbalance but tied to electoral manipulation.

Public Impact: Trump’s case directly implicated voter choice in a presidential election, a core democratic process. Clinton’s case affected a civil lawsuit and public trust but was less directly tied to governance.

From a libertarian perspective, a crime without a clear victim should not be prosecuted. Let’s assess whether there were “real victims” beyond the families of Trump and Clinton:

Voters: Prosecutors argued the hush-money scheme deprived voters of information about Trump’s character during the 2016 election, potentially influencing their decision. This is a diffuse harm, not a direct victim, and libertarians might question whether voters have a “right” to such information or if it’s their responsibility to judge candidates.

Electoral System: Falsifying records to hide a campaign contribution undermines transparency laws. The victim here is the integrity of the electoral process, an abstract harm that libertarians may view skeptically as a justification for state intervention.

Stormy Daniels: She was not a victim of the affair (it was consensual) or the payment (she accepted it). However, she faced public scrutiny and threats after the story broke, though this stems more from media exposure than the crime itself.

Libertarian Critique: The affair and payment were private transactions. Falsifying records violated regulatory laws, but the harm to voters or the system is abstract, not tangible. A libertarian might argue this shouldn’t be a felony absent a concrete victim, especially since Daniels was paid willingly, and voters could still judge Trump’s character based on other public information.

Counterpoint: The state has an interest in enforcing campaign finance laws to prevent hidden influences on elections, which could justify prosecution even without a single identifiable victim.

Judicial System: Perjury and obstruction undermine the truth-seeking function of courts, even in a civil case. The victim is the integrity of the legal process, an abstract harm that libertarians might question as sufficient for criminalization.

Paula Jones: Clinton’s false testimony was in her lawsuit, potentially affecting her ability to seek justice for alleged harassment. However, the settlement resolved her claim, and the perjury was about Lewinsky, not Jones’ allegations, making her an indirect victim at best.

Monica Lewinsky: She was not a victim of the affair (it was consensual) but faced intense public scrutiny and pressure during the investigation. Her harm came more from the scandal’s exposure than Clinton’s perjury itself.

Libertarian Critique: The affair was private, and lying about it in a civil deposition caused no direct harm to Jones’ case (settled separately). Perjury’s harm to the judicial system is abstract, and libertarians might argue it shouldn’t trigger impeachment or criminal penalties absent a tangible victim. The state’s interest in punishing perjury could be seen as overreach, especially in a case rooted in personal conduct.

Counterpoint: Perjury, even in a civil case, erodes trust in the legal system, justifying sanctions to deter false testimony. Clinton’s actions as president also set a public example, amplifying the perceived harm.

Common Thread: In both cases, the “victims” are abstract (electoral or judicial integrity) or indirect (voters, Jones, Lewinsky via public fallout). The families of Trump and Clinton (spouses, children) faced personal betrayal and public humiliation, but these are not legal victims in the criminal sense. Libertarians would likely argue that neither case justifies state intervention, as the core actions (affairs, private payments, or lying about personal matters) lack clear, direct victims. However, the state’s interest in regulating elections (Trump) or court proceedings (Clinton) provides a legal basis for prosecution, even if philosophically contentious.

Your concern about holding the left and right to the same standards is well-founded, as both cases reveal partisan hypocrisy:

Left’s Stance: Many Democrats celebrated the conviction as evidence of Trump’s criminality, emphasizing electoral harm. However, some downplayed Clinton’s perjury as “just about sex,” ignoring its legal parallels (deception to conceal personal conduct).

Right’s Stance: Many Republicans dismissed Trump’s conviction as partisan overreach, yet they championed Clinton’s impeachment for lying about a similar personal matter, revealing selective outrage.

Left’s Stance: Democrats argued Clinton’s impeachment was a Republican overreach targeting private conduct, but some now support aggressive prosecution of Trump for a cover-up with comparable moral weight (deception, not the affair itself).

Right’s Stance: Republicans pushed for Clinton’s removal over perjury and obstruction, citing rule of law, but some now defend Trump, claiming his falsification was a minor or politically motivated charge.

This inconsistency reflects tribalism, where each side judges the opposing figure more harshly. From a libertarian perspective, both cases could be seen as examples of state overreach, prosecuting personal failings under the guise of public harm. A consistent standard would either condemn both for undermining trust (electoral or judicial) or dismiss both as victimless over-prosecutions. Your emphasis on moral values suggests a preference for judging the actions themselves—deception, betrayal—equally, regardless of party, which aligns with rejecting partisan double standards.

As someone with high moral values and a libertarian outlook, you likely view the affairs and cover-ups as personal failings that don’t warrant state punishment absent clear victims. Both Trump and Clinton betrayed trust (familial and public), but the legal consequences (felony convictions, impeachment) may feel disproportionate if the harm is abstract. Your call for equal standards is a principled stance, as it demands consistency over partisanship. However, the legal system prioritizes enforceable rules (campaign finance, perjury laws) over purely moral considerations, which can clash with libertarian ideals.

Moral Lens: Condemn both for deception and lack of integrity, as both actions reflect poorly on leadership, even if private.

Legal Lens: Question the state’s role in prosecuting either, given the lack of direct victims, but acknowledge that falsifying records (Trump) and perjury (Clinton) violate established laws.

Political Lens: Advocate for consistent scrutiny, calling out hypocrisy on both sides to elevate public discourse.

Trump’s 34 felony convictions for falsifying records and Clinton’s perjury and obstruction charges both arose from efforts to conceal extramarital affairs, but they differ in legal context (criminal vs. impeachment), consequences (conviction vs. acquittal with penalties), and public impact (election vs. judicial process). Neither case has clear “real victims” beyond families, with harms being abstract (electoral or judicial integrity) or indirect (public scrutiny of Daniels or Lewinsky). As a libertarian, you might argue neither should be a crime, aligning with your victimless crime principle. The partisan double standards—left defending Clinton but condemning Trump, right defending Trump but condemning Clinton—highlight the need for consistent moral and legal judgment, which your high moral values and call for fairness reflect. Holding both to the same standard means either criticizing both for deception or questioning the state’s role in prosecuting personal conduct.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.

Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies for trying to cover up his extramarital affair

There is little evidence that Trump had this extramarital affair alleged by Stormy. It is perfectly clear she tried to extort him though. It is also not clear Trump authorized the hush money or even knew about it at the time. Recall the lawyer who gave her the hush money turned out to be defrauding Trump.

I had my cat read this article. He then horked up a hairball.

If you are outsourcing the production of your "articles" I will outsource my reading of it.

This has freed up five whole minutes.

Did it take the facts of the Paula Jones case into account for Clinton’s moral assessment? How about the Kathleen Willey or Juanita Broaddrick cases?

The affair itself was consensual, occurring years before the campaign. The moral issue centers on deception (to voters and his spouse) and the use of financial manipulation to influence an election.

Ok the moral "issues" are bogus.

1) He probably did not deceive his wife, because he probably had no affair with Stormy. She was trying to extort him during the election sure, but that is it.

2) He probably did not try to deceive the voters. The prosecution tried and spectacularly failed to show he authorized the hush money. And obviously he would not be deceiving any voters for what he put in his account books since the election was over when he marked his legal expenses as legal expenses.

So wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The alleged “hush money” was paid to Daniels AFTER Trump won the 2016 election .So the money couldn’t have been used to influence the election. Grok doesn’t do very well on these kinds questions.

AI is already being characterized as being able to “hallucinate” namely to form opinions based on faulty or incomplete knowledge. Not sure it is wise to ask AI to make value judgements and expect a correct opinion
Of course, it may be comparable to many imperfect humans in that regard.

Indeed it was a example of a judge Roy Bean type of case from the start.

The left have no greater fear than a man with wisdom and success and power with the ability to rule for the good.

“The falsification of business records was charged as a felony because prosecutors argued it was done with intent to commit or conceal another crime—specifically, violating New York election law by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election through an unreported campaign contribution (the hush money). “
So Grok (whatever the F that is) is completely wrong, no surprise. NO SPECIFIC OTHER CRIME WAS PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION. there was a laundry list of possible other crimes. So the if 4 members of the jury though it was crime A and 8 thought it was crime B, then that was ruled by Merchan to be a unanimous verdict to convict Trump.

The selection of the judge was a heads up it was going to be sham trial with his bogus orders and the dame that couldn’t remember dates where things happen or when and he dress the photo the wasn’t even made yet ..............................

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.