The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: mountaineer on May 09, 2023, 07:08:24 pm
-
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
All rise!
Judge Kaplan: I have received a note reading in its entirety, "Verdict." Decorum will be maintained in the courtroom - no shouting, no race for the door. Those are the things that must happen. Let's get the jury.
3:04 PM · May 9, 2023
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Judge Kaplan: Clerk will publish the verdict.
Clerk: As to battery, did Ms. Carroll prove that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll? Answer. NO
Clerk: Abused Ms. Carroll? Yes. Dollar amount: $2 million
3:07 PM · May 9, 2023
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Clerk: Wonton disgard? Yes. $20,000. Defamation? Yes. Trump's statement false? Yes. Actual malice? Yes. Injured? Yes. Amount: $1 million. Reputation repair program: $1.7 million.
3:09 PM · May 9, 2023
Story at NY Post: https://t.co/7C9bJcxlKl
-
Interesting.
-
Of course, it's WANTON, not wonton. That's Chinese food.
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
Clear: Wonton? Yes. Amount: $280,000.
Judge Kaplan: Juror numbers are annexed. Mr. Tacopina, do you wish to poll?
Tacopina: Yes.
3:11 PM · May 9, 2023
-
@amuse
@amuse
JUSTICE? U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan instructed the jury that all they have to do is conclude that Trump gave Carroll an “unwanted peck on the cheek” in order to find him guilty in civil rape case. The judge and jury are all Democrats.
----------------------------------------
Greg Price
@greg_price11
BREAKING: A Manhattan jury just found Donald Trump liable in a civil lawsuit for E. Jean Carroll's claims of abuse and defamation but REJECTS her claim that he raped her in the 90s.
She's the lady who said "rape is sexy" on CNN.
Her lawsuit was also entirely funded by Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman, who was recently exposed for hanging out on Jeffrey Epstein's island in 2014.
Of course, this wasn't a matter of "guilty" or "innocent." It was a civil case. But is this really a fair statement of the law?
Next question: what effect, if any, on Trump's presidential aspirations?
-
That old Pu$$y Grabbing comment came back to bit him in the ass.
-
That old Pu$$y Grabbing comment came back to bit him in the ass.
Yep....not testifying came back to haunt him
-
Looks like she'll be grabbing Trump by the wallet.
-
That old Pu$$y Grabbing comment came back to bit him in the ass.
I think we can change the labeling of the Access Hollywood tape from "locker room talk" to "confession."
So now we're gonna get 18 months of "he didn't RAPE rape, just sexually abused and defamed." If Elon needs a Mars crew I will happily volunteer.
-
Not surprised by the verdict since there was no bar to step over. I am somewhat surprised by the relatively low dollar amounts.
-
It will be years before Carroll sees a dime...
May 9, 2023 3:39pm EDT
Trump to appeal verdict in E. Jean Carroll case, says he has 'absolutely no idea' who she is
A federal jury in NYC said Trump was not guilty of rape, but was guilty of sexual abuse and defamation
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-to-appeal-verdict-in-e-jean-carroll-case-says-he-has-absolutely-no-idea-who-she-is
-
I'd appeal, too. The judge exhibited clear bias.
Greg Price
@greg_price11
Manhattan jury rejects E. Jean Carroll's claim that Donald Trump raped her.
Same Manhattan jury then finds Trump liable for defamation for saying that he didn't rape her.
🤪
3:46 PM · May 9, 2023
-
Hmph. Faith in justice system somewhat restored, at least momentarily. Shocked that a Manhattan jury would actually acquit Trump of anything. But of course I never expected him to walk away scott free.
-
He never met her..thought she was one of his wives.. *****rollingeyes***** pointing-down
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/05/NYPICHPDPICT000010655239-3.jpg?resize=2048,1601&quality=75&strip=all)
-
Of course, it's WANTON, not wonton. That's Chinese food.
Maybe the jury didn't like their lunch....
-
Hmph. Faith in justice system somewhat restored, at least momentarily. Shocked that a Manhattan jury would actually acquit Trump of anything. But of course I never expected him to walk away scott free.
Me neither - Though that is more of a judgement against the NY justice system than against Tumpy.
This kind of #metoo crap is always reject-able on its face, and always should be.
No doubt he will appeal, and win in the end.
-
I think we can change the labeling of the Access Hollywood tape from "locker room talk" to "confession."
So now we're gonna get 18 months of "he didn't RAPE rape, just sexually abused and defamed." If Elon needs a Mars crew I will happily volunteer.
Dunno. we aren't on anything I recognize as Planet Earth now. :shrug:
-
Dunno. we aren't on anything I recognize as Planet Earth now. :shrug:
:beer:
-
This kind of #metoo crap is always reject-able on its face, and always should be.
Right
You can’t come out and claim someone rape to 20-30 years after an alleged rape and expect a conviction.
The #MeToo movement had nothing to do with women and more to do with getting Donald Trump. Evidence of that is when Joe Biden was accused and the #MeToo movement ran from his accuser as fast as they could
-
I'd appeal, too. The judge exhibited clear bias.
:yowsa: Absolutely!
-
This defamation civil suit has always been about the Benjamins -----
The funniest part of this is they had been playing selective video clips from Trump's deposition on a loop all over MSM social media. But, pulled them when it turned out the clips were helping Trump with the general population :laugh:
My predictions in no particular order:
* Expect those deposition clips to make an appearance on the rally Trumptron
* Look for Ms.Carroll to rapidly develop a deeper appreciation of "defamation"
* Ms. Carroll and her estate will owe Trump $50 million
-
Given the location, the fact that this is a civil trial and the defendant, I expected nothing less.
I do hope Trump appeals...this is kooky and wrong.
These women making allegations 30 years after the fact do nothing more that throw out protestations of women who may have actually been hurt.
-
Given the location, the fact that this is a civil trial and the defendant, I expected nothing less.
I do hope Trump appeals...this is kooky and wrong.
These women making allegations 30 years after the fact do nothing more that throw out protestations of women who may have actually been hurt.
I hope he does appeal as well and comes out victorious.
-
This is the last straw...I'm not voting for him. /s *****rollingeyes*****
-
Given the location, the fact that this is a civil trial and the defendant, I expected nothing less.
I do hope Trump appeals...this is kooky and wrong.
These women making allegations 30 years after the fact do nothing more that throw out protestations of women who may have actually been hurt.
@berdie perhaps you will be kind enough to explain how it is that a lawsuit in ANY civil matter can be filed thirty years or more after an alleged wrong. I'm serious as a heart attack.
-
@berdie perhaps you will be kind enough to explain how it is that a lawsuit in ANY civil matter can be filed thirty years or more after an alleged wrong. I'm serious as a heart attack.
Unless a statute of limitation or statute of repose exists, a civil suit can be brought at any time, ever.
-
Greg Price
@greg_price11
Manhattan jury rejects E. Jean Carroll's claim that Donald Trump raped her.
Same Manhattan jury then finds Trump liable for defamation for saying that he didn't rape her.
🤪
3:46 PM · May 9, 2023
-
What is the defamation of character that’s been alleged here?
And I’m not a lawyer, but don’t you have to show where the defamation of character caused harm?
-
What is the defamation of character that’s been alleged here?
And I’m not a lawyer, but don’t you have to show where the defamation of character caused harm?
The trial was held in Manhattan where Trump isn't exactly the most popular guy.
-
What is the defamation of character that’s been alleged here?
And I’m not a lawyer, but don’t you have to show where the defamation of character caused harm?
Certain types of defamation are considered per se harmful.
-
E. Jean Carroll’s Original Claims About Trump Were Absurd, But That Didn’t Stop The Media From Amplifying Them
By: Eddie Scarry
May 09, 2023
The Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/09/e-jean-carrolls-original-claims-about-trump-were-absurd-but-that-didnt-stop-the-media-from-amplifying-them/)Since a jury in New York is now tasked with determining whether E. Jean Carroll really was raped by Donald Trump nearly three decades ago, it’s a good time to reflect on just how ridiculous her claim was when she originally made it in 2019.
But more critical than the 79-year-old magazine writer’s allegation that Trump assaulted her in a fitting room after the two noisily galavanted throughout a popular department store — a claim she made to promote a new book — is the absolute nonsense she said immediately after.
It’s pretty stunning to accuse a sitting president of rape but then not want to call it rape, which is exactly what Carroll did at the time. In an interview with The New York Times, “It was an episode. It was an action. It was a fight. It was not a crime. It was, I had a struggle with a guy.” She added in the same interview, “I am not — I have not been raped. Something has not been done to me. I fought. That’s the thing.”
If it were just some kind of coping mechanism, a self-empowerment move to omit the word from her vocabulary, it might make sense. But when asked in a separate interview on MSNBC whether she would consider attempting to press criminal charges against Trump, her answer was even more bizarre. She flatly said no, and when asked why, she said, “I would find it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection … It would just be really disrespectful.”
If you’re not following, that’s okay. Carroll was simply saying that she wouldn’t seek charges against the man who allegedly raped her because she had too much compassion for illegal immigrants. Understand? ...
-
Did anyone watch DJT's testimony? When confronted about the "Grabbing the P" comment, he almost broke out in a grin. 50 years ago if comments came out to light, he'd be laughed off the stage even trying to be a serious candidate.
This is a despicable reprehensible POS, who has no moral authority to lead this nation. Please lets move on.
-
Did anyone watch DJT's testimony? When confronted about the "Grabbing the P" comment, he almost broke out in a grin. 50 years ago if comments came out to light, he'd be laughed off the stage even trying to be a serious candidate.
This is a despicable reprehensible POS, who has no moral authority to lead this nation. Please lets move on.
That’s why in DNC headquarters, they are praying that Donald Trump gets the nomination. He gives them lots of material.
Not that other Republicans would have it easy. It’s just Donald Trump makes their job easier than any other GOP candidate.
-
Did anyone watch DJT's testimony? When confronted about the "Grabbing the P" comment, he almost broke out in a grin. 50 years ago if comments came out to light, he'd be laughed off the stage even trying to be a serious candidate.
This is a despicable reprehensible POS, who has no moral authority to lead this nation. Please lets move on.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"
I have been guilty of locker room talk and I seriously doubt that I'm the only one here.
-
That’s why in DNC headquarters, they are praying that Donald Trump gets the nomination. He gives them lots of material.
Not that other Republicans would have it easy. It’s just Donald Trump makes their job easier than any other GOP candidate.
:thumbsup:
-
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"
I have been guilty of locker room talk and I seriously doubt that I'm the only one here.
Cast that stone. I've never said anything like that, and never would. I think you'll be surprised how many don't participate in that kind of banter. , and to that point. What was with the near grin? Is that who we want as POTUS?
-
Did anyone watch DJT's testimony? When confronted about the "Grabbing the P" comment, he almost broke out in a grin. 50 years ago if comments came out to light, he'd be laughed off the stage even trying to be a serious candidate.
This is a despicable reprehensible POS, who has no moral authority to lead this nation. Please lets move on.
LOL! *****rollingeyes*****
-
Cast that stone. I've never said anything like that, and never would. I think you'll be surprised how many don't participate in that kind of banter. , and to that point. What was with the near grin? Is that who we want as POTUS?
You bet your smarmy azz we do, brother! :laugh: :patriot:
-
Cast that stone. I've never said anything like that, and never would. I think you'll be surprised how many don't participate in that kind of banter. , and to that point. What was with the near grin? Is that who we want as POTUS?
I'm sorry @catfish1957 but I just do not believe that.
-
I'm sorry @catfish1957 but I just do not believe that.
Believe what you want. Maybe its my southern upbringing to put women on a pedestal, especially those we are fond of. I've never said anything near that vile.
I will call my politcal opponents like AOC a bitch, but would never refer to their genitals or other vile aspects. OTOH, DJT almost smiles when refereing to his abiity to grab on them at will. I will place my moral status against his in any forum or aspect of discussion. I'm sorry, but the locker room banter you allude to, at least did not apply to me.
-
Did anyone watch DJT's testimony? When confronted about the "Grabbing the P" comment, he almost broke out in a grin. 50 years ago if comments came out to light, he'd be laughed off the stage even trying to be a serious candidate.
To most people it looked like controlled rage. This very selective clip from the deposition was pulled from the media loop ---- it was helping Trump.
This is a despicable reprehensible POS, who has no moral authority to lead this nation. Please lets move on.
There you go again, aghast and self-righteous over the normal response to yet another aggregious, fabricated charge literally paid for by Trump's political opposition.
Get the difference between the target of political lawfare and the perpetrators before you demand we move on.
-
Believe what you want. Maybe its my southern upbringing to put women on a pedestal, especially those we are fond of. I've never said anything near that vile.
I will call my politcal opponents like AOC a bitch, but would never refer to their genitals or other vile aspects. OTOH, DJT almost smiles when refereing to his abiity to grab on them at will. I will place my moral status against his in any forum or aspect of discussion. I'm sorry, but the locker room banter you allude to, at least did not apply to me.
If you really want the moral high ground you think you deserve, first you need to stop lying about what was said in the locker room quote.
-
Is a half grin enough to disqualify someone from President? Not really for me. Heh, in 2016 I basically voted Trump for spite, and if I have to do it again I will.
Trump was being surreptitiously recorded I believe... there's really nothing you've ever said in your private life you wouldn't be embarrassed about?
To me, these people are all scum (E Jean, Lincoln Project etc.) so bleep 'em.
-
Is a half grin enough to disqualify someone from President? Not really for me. Heh, in 2016 I basically voted Trump for spite, and if I have to do it again I will.
Trump was being surreptitiously recorded I believe... there's really nothing you've ever said in your private life you wouldn't be embarrassed about?
To me, these people are all scum (E Jean, Lincoln Project etc.) so bleep 'em.
Donald Trump has 20 some claims of sexual impropriety made against him. I understand everybody is innocent till proven guilty and there’s no way to prove that any of these happened but are all these women lying and Donald Trump is the honest one here?
If you listen to the tape, it reveals a character issue that Donald Trump has, and that is his belief that his fame and fortune allows him to dominate women. It’s the same trait that Bill Clinton had.
And I think that’s what ultimately hurt him in this case
But I will agree with you that it was a low move to record him without his knowledge, and then release it to the public
-
If you really want the moral high ground you think you deserve, first you need to stop lying about what was said in the locker room quote.
So just what Trump said in the "Grabbing the P" testimony was a lie or a distortion? I didn't hear a denial....
I'm all ears, and dying to hear your interpretation.
-
Donald Trump has 20 some claims of sexual impropriety made against him. I understand everybody is innocent till proven guilty and there’s no way to prove that any of these happened but are all these women lying and Donald Trump is the honest one here?
If you listen to the tape, it reveals a character issue that Donald Trump has, and that is his belief that his fame and fortune allows him to dominate women. It’s the same trait that Bill Clinton had.
And I think that’s what ultimately hurt him in this case
I don't think it's news to anyone with a working brain that Trump has never been able to keep it in his pants.
-
DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
Did you know?
The statue of limitations for sexual assault in NY is typically 5-7 years
New York even has a 20 year period for civil claims of sexual assault
But that wasn’t enough to get Trump - Jean Carroll’s claims go back to the mid 90s
So NY amended the law in 2022 to provide unlimited statue of limitations for civil claims of sexual assault and provided a 1 year window where preexisting claims could be litigated
That’s where Jean Carroll comes in
Funded by a Democrat activist, she filed her claim against Trump in that limited window and even a liberal New York jury wouldn’t find Trump liable for rape
People paying attention know what this truly is
Another political attack to try and harm Trump before the 2024 election
https://forbes.com/sites/douglaswigdor/2022/05/25/statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-assault-eliminated-for-one-year-in-new-york-following-passage-of-the-adult-survivors-act/?sh=3561bae846fd
8:10 AM · May 10, 2023
-
I don't think it's news to anyone with a working brain that Trump has never been able to keep it in his pants.
That is true
The problem when someone accuses somebody of rape, or sexual harassment, it’s really hard to prove without solid evidence. So then what people do is they tend to get into their political corners, when deciding guilt or innocence.
-
That is true
The problem when someone accuses somebody of rape, or sexual harassment, it’s really hard to prove without solid evidence. So then what people do is they tend to get into their political corners, when deciding guilt or innocence.
It's a he said/she said situation. I look at this woman's body language and history and I see a total nutbag, personally. Trump is absolutely a dog, but IMO he's not a rapist, in the middle of a Dept. store, in the mid-90's. But I wasn't there, so I could be wrong, but I don't think any of us were there were we?
-
Is there any reason why Trump did not defend himself, with so much on the line? The jury was allowed to draw a negative inference in light of his absence. I bet his attorneys concluded Trump would make it worse for himself … just a nightmare client. At this point, he’s the courtroom version of the Washington Generals.
-
DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
Did you know?
The statue of limitations for sexual assault in NY is typically 5-7 years
New York even has a 20 year period for civil claims of sexual assault
But that wasn’t enough to get Trump - Jean Carroll’s claims go back to the mid 90s
So NY amended the law in 2022 to provide unlimited statue of limitations for civil claims of sexual assault and provided a 1 year window where preexisting claims could be litigated
That’s where Jean Carroll comes in
Funded by a Democrat activist, she filed her claim against Trump in that limited window and even a liberal New York jury wouldn’t find Trump liable for rape
People paying attention know what this truly is
Another political attack to try and harm Trump before the 2024 election
https://forbes.com/sites/douglaswigdor/2022/05/25/statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-assault-eliminated-for-one-year-in-new-york-following-passage-of-the-adult-survivors-act/?sh=3561bae846fd
8:10 AM · May 10, 2023
Whinging on about the statute of limitations is rather small beer; it doesn't defend Mr. Trump against the underlying allegations.
-
Is there any reason why Trump did not defend himself, with so much on the line? The jury was allowed to draw a negative inference in light of his absence. I bet his attorneys concluded Trump would make it worse for himself … just a nightmare client. At this point, he’s the courtroom version of the Washington Generals.
Trump absolutely makes it worse for himself. Remember when he was President?
-
Is there any reason why Trump did not defend himself, with so much on the line? The jury was allowed to draw a negative inference in light of his absence. I bet his attorneys concluded Trump would make it worse for himself … just a nightmare client. At this point, he’s the courtroom version of the Washington Generals.
Most likely because, if he had gotten on the stand to testify, the plaintiff's attorneys would have been given the opportunity to cross-examine him and, in particular, to ask him all sorts of impertinent, but colorable, questions to impeach his credibility. Recall how he went off on the journalist who was asking him questions he didn't like; now imagine that but with questions that are orders of magnitude more offensive, and consider how Trump would have reacted. He would have totally lost it and gotten extremely angry on the stand, and would have done serious damage to his case.
His failure to testify was almost certainly used against him - it was a civil case, so a jury is allowed to draw negative inferences from the defendant's failure to testify on his own behalf - but I think it was a Catch-22, because the consequences of having him testify would probably have been worse.
-
Most likely because, if he had gotten on the stand to testify, the plaintiff's attorneys would have been given the opportunity to cross-examine him and, in particular, to ask him all sorts of impertinent, but colorable, questions to impeach his credibility. Recall how he went off on the journalist who was asking him questions he didn't like; now imagine that but with questions that are orders of magnitude more offensive, and consider how Trump would have reacted. He would have totally lost it and gotten extremely angry on the stand, and would have done serious damage to his case.
His failure to testify was almost certainly used against him - it was a civil case, so a jury is allowed to draw negative inferences from the defendant's failure to testify on his own behalf - but I think it was a Catch-22, because the consequences of having him testify would probably have been worse.
Endless legal harassment is not fair to anyone. Trump included.
-
@berdie perhaps you will be kind enough to explain how it is that a lawsuit in ANY civil matter can be filed thirty years or more after an alleged wrong. I'm serious as a heart attack.
I don't have a clue @Bigun so I'll rely on @Kamaji 's response.
It still doesn't seem fair, does it? :laugh:
-
Endless legal harassment is not fair to anyone. Trump included.
However one wants to characterize it, the fact is that Trump is particularly prone to being his own worst enemy, and getting up on the stand exposes one to a lot of crap as a matter of course because not only can you be questioned about the facts - what happened - you can also be questioned about things that tend to reflect on your credibility as a witness, and those can be much more far-reaching, and have nothing to do with the actual case itself.
In criminal cases I've heard of it called the "dump truck rule" because if the criminal defendant gets up on the stand, the prosecutor has license to come in with just about every bad thing he can dig up on the defendant to impeach the defendant's credibility - he can dump the truckload on him.
-
The lawyers will milk all the billable hours they can get from the appeals and the appeals' appeals.
Meanwhile, there's another crack in Tangerine Mussolini's teflon shield of legal invincibility.
Death by a thousand legal cuts.
////00000////
Will Trump be releasing 5 million dollars of new NFT's?
-
Endless legal harassment is not fair to anyone. Trump included.
Agreed, but Trump's mouth makes him a lot of enemies. And if they're motivated enough, this is one way they'll harm you.
But my advice is to speak softly and carry a big stick in this regard.
-
Agreed, but Trump's mouth makes him a lot of enemies.
He has the right to remain silent... But he doesn't have the ability.
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.8O7wR9p4T-aj0e6Bvh3MrwHaFn&pid=Api&P=0)
-
He has the right to remain silent... But he doesn't have the ability.
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.8O7wR9p4T-aj0e6Bvh3MrwHaFn&pid=Api&P=0)
That applies to a lot of people including me and YOU!
-
He has the right to remain silent... But he doesn't have the ability.
They caught the Tater.
-
Former Trump press secretary says harassment was ‘really bad’
Rachel Scully
~3 minutes
Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that she witnessed first-hand former President Trump’s alleged sexual harassment, describing it as “really bad, to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable.”
During an appearance on CNN earlier this week, Grisham detailed the harassment she observed while working under the then-president. She added that she wanted to protect a specific staffer, who she said Trump would frequently take on trips with him.
Grisham also detailed an incident in which Trump called a staffer to come back to “look at her ass.”
“He one time had one of my other deputies bring her back so that they could look at her ass, is what he said to him,” Grisham said. “I sat down and talked to her at one point, asked her if she was uncomfortable.”
“I tried everything I could to ensure she was never alone with him,” she added.
While she noted that Trump would frequently comment on people’s looks and speculate about cosmetic surgery, Grisham said the harassment against the specific staffer was particularly alarming.
more
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3997603-former-trump-press-secretary-says-harassment-was-really-bad/
-
Here they come.
-
Former Trump press secretary says harassment was ‘really bad’
Rachel Scully
~3 minutes
Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that she witnessed first-hand former President Trump’s alleged sexual harassment, describing it as “really bad, to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable.”
During an appearance on CNN earlier this week, Grisham detailed the harassment she observed while working under the then-president. She added that she wanted to protect a specific staffer, who she said Trump would frequently take on trips with him.
Grisham also detailed an incident in which Trump called a staffer to come back to “look at her ass.”
“He one time had one of my other deputies bring her back so that they could look at her ass, is what he said to him,” Grisham said. “I sat down and talked to her at one point, asked her if she was uncomfortable.”
“I tried everything I could to ensure she was never alone with him,” she added.
While she noted that Trump would frequently comment on people’s looks and speculate about cosmetic surgery, Grisham said the harassment against the specific staffer was particularly alarming.
more
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3997603-former-trump-press-secretary-says-harassment-was-really-bad/
Hmph... yeah now this kind of stuff. Nobody wants their daughter treated like that.
-
That applies to a lot of people including me and YOU!
That's right @Bigun ... But some more than others... :whistle: happy77
-
They caught the Tater.
:laugh: :beer:
-
Cyber's one sentence summary: "Donald Trump fined $5 Million for not raping woman."
-
Hmph... yeah now this kind of stuff. Nobody wants their daughter treated like that.
This is pretty damaging considering it happened while Trump was president -- proof though is needed or others coming forward.
-
This is pretty damaging considering it happened while Trump was president -- proof though is needed or others coming forward.
Agreed.
-
This is pretty damaging considering it happened while Trump was president -- proof though is needed or others coming forward.
Well, alright... but a grain of salt...
I have been accused of sexual harassment for nothing more than calling a gal 'darlin', which if you are familiar with country folks, is just a natural part of talking to a woman. There ain't a bit of offense in it, anymore than opening the door for a woman. Such things are complimentary and a deference to an unearned respect.
Like with Roy Moore... I will be hard to convince without serious evidence.
Again, this #metoo crap has got to stop... Even if I don't like the guy.
-
Well, alright... but a grain of salt...
I have been accused of sexual harassment for nothing more than calling a gal 'darlin', which if you are familiar with country folks, is just a natural part of talking to a woman. There ain't a bit of offense in it, anymore than opening the door for a woman. Such things are complimentary and a deference to an unearned respect.
Like with Roy Moore... I will be hard to convince without serious evidence.
Again, this #metoo crap has got to stop... Even if I don't like the guy.
Read the story above. If true - I stress that - it's orders of magnitude worse than just calling someone "Darlin'"
-
Well, alright... but a grain of salt...
I have been accused of sexual harassment for nothing more than calling a gal 'darlin', which if you are familiar with country folks, is just a natural part of talking to a woman. There ain't a bit of offense in it, anymore than opening the door for a woman. Such things are complimentary and a deference to an unearned respect.
Like with Roy Moore... I will be hard to convince without serious evidence.
Again, this #metoo crap has got to stop... Even if I don't like the guy.
Yes, like I said -- there needs to be some kind of proof and that means that others need to come forward and testify what they saw or heard personally -- not just hearsay. Then it still boils down to his word against theirs unless there are recordings.
-
Everybody who thinks a legit complaint is going to be left hanging for THIRTY FRIGGIN YEARS raise your hand.
Yeah! That's what I thought.
-
Former Trump press secretary says harassment was ‘really bad’
Rachel Scully
~3 minutes
Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that she witnessed first-hand former President Trump’s alleged sexual harassment, describing it as “really bad, to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable.”
During an appearance on CNN earlier this week, Grisham detailed the harassment she observed while working under the then-president. She added that she wanted to protect a specific staffer, who she said Trump would frequently take on trips with him.
Grisham also detailed an incident in which Trump called a staffer to come back to “look at her ass.”
“He one time had one of my other deputies bring her back so that they could look at her ass, is what he said to him,” Grisham said. “I sat down and talked to her at one point, asked her if she was uncomfortable.”
“I tried everything I could to ensure she was never alone with him,” she added.
While she noted that Trump would frequently comment on people’s looks and speculate about cosmetic surgery, Grisham said the harassment against the specific staffer was particularly alarming.
more
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3997603-former-trump-press-secretary-says-harassment-was-really-bad/
But why come out with this now? Why not at the time or even immediately after he was voted out of office?
-
So just what Trump said in the "Grabbing the P" testimony was a lie or a distortion? I didn't hear a denial....
I'm all ears, and dying to hear your interpretation.
I’m also curious about what the lie was. Not only did he boast about being able to grab women by the genitals without their consent, he also talked about going up to women and kissing them and carrying Tic Tacs for that purpose
Some people will defend the indefensible
-
Read the story above. If true - I stress that - it's orders of magnitude worse than just calling someone "Darlin'"
Yeah, yeah... Roy Moore all over again. Again. These ***holes have called wolf so many times I don't even sit up in my chair anymore...
I don't like Tumpy... And I wouldn't put it past him... But you can't put such a slander on anybody without some sort of actionable proof.This he said/she said #metoo crap makes for lousy law.
-
Yes, like I said -- there needs to be some kind of proof and that means that others need to come forward and testify what they saw or heard personally -- not just hearsay. Then it still boils down to his word against theirs unless there are recordings.
That's right. Actionable proof. Recordings... bastard kids... Shoot, even a hotel room. SOMETHING.
And even at that, how does one defend against a charge made YEARS past? That's the thing that is nonsense. Do you know for a sustainable fact where you were 30 years ago? What EXACTLY you did on any given day? What witnesses could you call forward? What receipts to show your whereabouts?
Everything is so far down the memory hole that without the Blue Dress, NONE of it could be proven. And there ain't a Blue Dress, or they'd have used it long before now.
It's gonna be bullshit.
-
Yeah, yeah... Roy Moore all over again. Again. These ***holes have called wolf so many times I don't even sit up in my chair anymore...
I don't like Tumpy... And I wouldn't put it past him... But you can't put such a slander on anybody without some sort of actionable proof.This he said/she said #metoo crap makes for lousy law.
That's why I emphasized "if true". At this point, Trump should be suing the speaker for defamation/libel, to force her to divulge the name of this supposed staffer.
If he doesn't however, then that may be a tacit omission that there is more than just smoke and mirrors there.
-
This is pretty damaging considering it happened while Trump was president -- proof though is needed or others coming forward.
This isn't the same lady who claimed that Trump wanted to take his limo to the January 6th with the Secret Service or whatever is it? Because that will change my opinion on this.
Edit: No, that was Cassidy Hutchinson.
-
That's why I emphasized "if true". At this point, Trump should be suing the speaker for defamation/libel, to force her to divulge the name of this supposed staffer.
If he doesn't however, then that may be a tacit omission that there is more than just smoke and mirrors there.
I realize your emphasis, and that is why I countered: I don't believe a damn word of it without real proof.
And I don't think proof is there... If they had a pot to piss in they'd have thrown it at him long before now.
-
I realize your emphasis, and that is why I countered: I don't believe a damn word of it without real proof.
And I don't think proof is there... If they had a pot to piss in they'd have thrown it at him long before now.
Certainly you would think that they would have gone after Trump while he was campaigning the first time around. :shrug:
Why now??? Other than the DEMS are pulling out all the stops to try and prevent him from running again.
-
Certainly you would think that they would have gone after Trump while he was campaigning the first time around. :shrug:
Why now??? Other than the DEMS are pulling out all the stops to try and prevent him from running again.
They’re not trying to stop him from running. They want him to run; they want him to suck all the oxygen out of the GOP nomination process again and make lots of new enemies. They also want him damaged in the eyes of the uncommitted voters, so that he is almost certain to lose.
Basically, they are using him against himself to turn him into an albatross around the GOP’s neck.
-
Certainly you would think that they would have gone after Trump while he was campaigning the first time around. :shrug:
Why now??? Other than the DEMS are pulling out all the stops to try and prevent him from running again.
That's exactly right... And their problem is that they have made him bulletproof.The only thing they have left is to pull the old Tom Delay (or Roy Moore) trick and keep him tied up in court till he can't move forward campaigning.
Mark my words: He will beat the charges, just like Delay did (and Moore did). The trick would be to get elected president in the mean time. And that's a tough row to hoe.
-
They’re not trying to stop him from running. They want him to run; they want him to suck all the oxygen out of the GOP nomination process again and make lots of new enemies. They also want him damaged in the eyes of the uncommitted voters, so that he is almost certain to lose.
Basically, they are using him against himself to turn him into an albatross around the GOP’s neck.
That could be right... But a heady gamble with a DeSantis waiting in the wings...
-
Basically, they are using him against himself to turn him into an albatross around the GOP’s neck.
Indeed, they're waiting for Trump to hang himself. He has a remarkable ability to "shoot himself in the foot"! (I feel very sorry for his campaign people.) His thoughtless comments can easily catch up with him. But I know that true followers like Trump for the bellicosity. As always, time will tell if he has traction with enough voters.