Hollywood/Political Sex Offense Scandals (Now Louis CK and AL-GOPSenateNom Roy Moore)

[Hawk]

there's pretty much never going to be proof of sexual assault. when multiple credible accusations go ignored because "the man didn't admit it," you're giving people the go ahead to sexually assault others with impunity. as long as they deny it, many will believe them. why ever stop?

"Pretty much" never going to be proof? Uh, lol, no.

"Credible" accusations? Lol, no.

Press charges. Formally document your accusations. Move the process into the judicial system. There are both civil and criminal remedies.

Don't rely on the kangaroo court.

 

[Coredor]

The people of each state should decide. This circumventing of the people will in our government is dangerous.

I agree unless there is an actual criminal conviction. The burden of proof lies with the accuser and I’m certainly not interested in decade old misdemeanors.

I’ll also note that I said the same thing about Moore before this started. I wouldn’t support him either way but we’re way over the top about some very old allegations. Of course that is up to Alabama voters. I do find it crazy that 30 year old allegations are getting more play than getting booted off the bench for official conduct. God forbid we talk about competence and issues that matter.

 

[Hawk]

He was a sued in 2016 by a woman who, supported by an eye-witness, claimed he assaulted her at a party in the early 1990s when she was thirteen. She was threatened to such an extent she withdrew her suit.

A bit surprised that you are still comfortable earnestly promulgating this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

Trump’s team said the lawsuit was badly flawed. “I don’t even know if there is a plaintiff,” said Garten. “I don’t know a lawyer worthy of the bar who would put his name to this lawsuit.” Meagher, however, insisted that he had met the plaintiff and separately spoken to her over video-conference. “She definitely exists,” said Meagher.

After repeated questions to “Al Taylor” asking him to confirm he was Norm Lubow went ignored, a text message was eventually sent to the Guardian from a cellphone previously answered several times by “Taylor”.

It said: “This is Katie Johnson. Why do you keep asking for [Lubow]. I do not know and have never met anybody by this name. If you are really a reporter like you claim are and not just a crank call like thousands of other calls I have gotten since my phone number was published throughout the world, then why don’t you ask how it feels to have the pervert who raped me when I was only 13 years running for President of this great country?

“It sickens me every time I see his evil face on TV. I am not after money, I want revenge for what this evil pedophile did to me. He doesn’t deserve to be President, he deserves to be in jail...

 

[Hawk]

women: trump just started kissing me

trump, privately: i just kiss them, i don't even wait, when you're a star they let you do it

trump, in public: no i never did that

dolts: yeah i'll take the one that works better for my politics plz

Super: dems won't allow their people to just deny it, threaten the women, and move on.

*Bill Clinton walks by*

*Bill Clinton walks by again, a decade later*

Super:

 

[57Brave]

To be perfectly clear, I think Bill Clinton should resign immediatly

And Hillary impeached

......

Move on

 

[Hawk]

There's no statute of limitations on publicly admitting immoral misconduct (or, as it relates to this particular case, enabling it).

 

[Hawk]

Move on

No, I absolutely will not budge from your lawn.

Although I will help you pick some of these thorny polito-philosophical weeds that you are up to your knees in.

 

[Hawk]

He was also sued in 1997, for an attempted rape and multiple gropings, but was able to maneuver the woman into dropping the suit in exchange for settlement of a separate suit by her partner.

“I also would like to show my support for Donald and his campaign. I am offering my services to do his grooming and getting him perfectly camera ready for photos and Hi-Definition TV. He knows better than anybody how important image is.”

In another email from October 2015, she praised Trump for “doing a tremendous job of shaking things up in the United States” and added: “I am definitely Team Trump!”

 

[jpx7]

A bit surprised that you are still comfortable earnestly promulgating this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

You raised the issue of formal complaints; this is one such. I agree that both the timeline (in the heat of the campaign, versus these other pre-established complaints) and the too-good-to-be-true shock-value of the allegation (child sex alongside convicted child sexer) make this claim more dubious; but given the mountain of other allegations, I'm likewise not willing to entirely dismiss it.

On broader turn: this spirited defense of Trump's sexual misconduct is all so damn craven of you, Hawk.

 

[goldfly]

The people of each state should decide. This circumventing of the people will in our government is dangerous.

and this is the talking point to allow oneself to endorse molesting children

pathetic how far we have fallen in just 2 years in the republican party

 

[jpx7]

“I also would like to show my support for Donald and his campaign. I am offering my services to do his grooming and getting him perfectly camera ready for photos and Hi-Definition TV. He knows better than anybody how important image is.”

In another email from October 2015, she praised Trump for “doing a tremendous job of shaking things up in the United States” and added: “I am definitely Team Trump!”

Harth maintains the veracity of allegations. This is pretty slimy on your part.

 

[Hawk]

Harth maintains the veracity of allegations. This is pretty slimy on your part.

Ok. It's not at all plausible that Harth might be an opportunist. No track record there whatsoever.

To entertain the other side of the coin isn't inherently a bad thing in this case. I think you, out of basically any other poster on this board, are able to make that extension.

 

[jpx7]

Trump’s team said the lawsuit was badly flawed. “I don’t even know if there is a plaintiff,” said Garten. “I don’t know a lawyer worthy of the bar who would put his name to this lawsuit.” Meagher, however, insisted that he had met the plaintiff and separately spoken to her over video-conference. “She definitely exists,” said Meagher.

Also think it's worth reminding you that you just instructed us that lawyers will say anything to improve their clients standing in litigation.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the 2016 suit, but I'm also definitely not taking Trump's counsel's word for it.

 

[Hawk]

Demonstrating the reasons why I have doubt, and reserve judgement, is not tantamount to mounting a full-throated defense or planting an irrevocable flag. Pigeonholing this issue seems so disingenuous.

 

[Hawk]

Also think it's worth reminding you that you just instructed us that lawyers will say anything to improve their clients standing in litigation.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the 2016 suit, but I'm also definitely not taking Trump's counsel's word for it.

Counsel is questioning the existence of the plaintiff. That's significantly different than trying to gain advantage in court by using arcane case law.

And then there's the Norm Ludlow angle. Which should trouble even the most casual observer.

The case was dismissed at the request of the plaintiff (without prejudice - so, technically, it could be back).

We can keep reaching, or we can take an circumspect account of the evidences available.

 

[jpx7]

Ok. It's not at all plausible that Harth might be an opportunist. No track record there whatsoever.

To entertain the other side of the coin isn't inherently a bad thing in this case. I think you, out of basically any other poster on this board, are able to make that extension.

Is it not possible that Lewinsky was an opportunist who actively encouraged/pursued her relationship with Clinton, not the other way around? I highly doubt it, but who really knows, right?

Is it not possible that Franken's accusers are opportunists with political motivations? Sure, he's resigning under pressure, but he's maintaining these incidents were misconstrued and not did not involve actual harassment/assault.

I'm more than willing to entertain the other side of the coin; but I am also willing to bow to a heap of likelihoods, even without a legally-binding confession—especially when we have off-the-record-accidentally-on-the-record confession of this sort of behavior. This is public-opinion court, after all, where reasonable suspicious is privileged over reasonable doubt—and there is plenty good reason to suspect Trump has engaged in sexual misconduct.

 

[jpx7]

Demonstrating the reasons why I have doubt, and reserve judgement, is not tantamount to mounting a full-throated defense or planting an irrevocable flag. Pigeonholing this issue seems so disingenuous.

Doubt's fine—I have doubts about everything under creation's bailiwick. But it's easy for me to not reserve judgment here when we have a couple decades of allegations (not all formally or legally mounted, but that's pretty standard in cases of sexual misconduct); we have a self-aggrandizing admission of such behavior (the interlocutor to which it was spoken affirming the recording's reality); a word-and-deed career of objectifying women; and an inchoate political career that's allied itself with a party that, policy-wise, doesn't exactly have a great record with women.

 

[Hawk]

Is it not possible that Lewinsky was an opportunist who actively encouraged/pursued her relationship with Clinton, not the other way around? I highly doubt it, but who really knows, right?

Is it not possible that Franken's accusers are opportunists with political motivations? Sure, he's resigning under pressure, but he's maintaining these incidents were misconstrued and not did not involve actual harassment/assault.

I'm more than willing to entertain the other side of the coin; but I am also willing to bow to a heap of likelihoods, even without a legally-binding confession—especially when we have off-the-record-accidentally-on-the-record confession of this sort of behavior. This is public-opinion court, after all, where reasonable suspicious is privileged over reasonable doubt—and there is plenty good reason to suspect Trump has engaged in sexual misconduct.

The difference here is that I'm not telling you that your stance is incorrect, or calling it cowardly or wrong-headed or slimy. I acknowledge that your belief could be perfectly on-point. But I have a different take that I've reasoned out in what I think is a pretty rationally unassailable format. You submit that there's reasonable suspicion here - but posit two cases that are ... flimsy, at best. Your chief evidence is the Access Hollywood tape. You can weigh that how you want.

And, with Lewinsky, did her behavior afterwards reflect opportunism?

Clinton admitted wrongdoing, publicly.

It's just not a good comparison.

 

[Julio3000]

The difference here is that I'm not telling you that your stance is incorrect, or calling it cowardly or wrong-headed or slimy. I acknowledge that your belief could be perfectly on-point. But I have a different take that I've reasoned out in what I think is a pretty rationally unassailable format. You submit that there's reasonable suspicion here - but posit two cases that are ... flimsy, at best. Your chief evidence is the Access Hollywood tape. You can weigh that how you want.

And, with Lewinsky, did her behavior afterwards reflect opportunism?

Clinton admitted wrongdoing, publicly.

It's just not a good comparison.

Congrats for successfully rationalizing how to call Bill Clinton a rapist for acknowledging an inappropriate but consensual affair but completely absolving Donald Trump of wrongdoing in the face of multiple accusations of inappropriate behavior.

 

[Hawk]

Congrats for successfully rationalizing how to call Bill Clinton a rapist for acknowledging an inappropriate but consensual affair but completely absolving Donald Trump of wrongdoing in the face of multiple accusations of inappropriate behavior.

I call Bill Clinton a rapist on the basis of my personal interpretation of said consensual affair. Throw in a dash of lying under oath for effect.

Again, I don't completely absolve Trump of doing anything. I don't know how much more clear about the subject I can be.