E. Jean Carroll triumphed in her sexual assault case against the ex-president. But what does it mean for him—and his election prospects? Alan Dershowitz, Lara Bazelon, and others weigh in.
I want to be very clear with my comment. As a husband of 41 years, the father of two beautiful daughters, and grandfather to three little girls, all of whom I adore and would give my life for, I put rape and sexual assault right up there with a capital crime, such as murder. In some ways, it is worse because the victim has to live with the consequences forever. It is inexcusable and deserving of judicial punishment commensurate with the abominable nature of the crime. Having laid that groundwork, I am very troubled by what I see as a corruption of our legal system for the purpose of targeting an individual who we wish to destroy by any means necessary. lt is inarguable that the democratic party and the left will do literally anything to destroy Trump's chances at another term and preserve their hold on political power in the US. I believe that anyone who doubts that is naive, in denial, or simply part of that ideology. I am no Trumper. I intensely dislike the man and his bombastic, boorish personality. I detest the smarmy condescension and better-then-thou attitude of Obama, Clinton, and Biden more.. not to mention the latter's clear intellectual incapacity. I suffer from the same handicap that nearly everyone who reads this does. I was not in the courtroom, have not read the trial transcripts, and I certainly wasn't in that changing room thirty years ago. Do you wonder, like I do, how both came to be in that changing room, as Ms. Carroll alleges and Trump denies? I cannot crawl into the mind of Trump or Ms. Carroll any more than you can. I do not trust a single word written by the legacy media these days. All of it drips partisanship and bias, without even a passing attempt at objectivity. Like all he said/she said trials with no physical evidence, we will be left to wonder and our opinion on the matter will likely be the same after the verdict as it was before. Of all the commentaries above, Dershowitz's carries the most weight with me because he is looking beyond the damage done to two individuals at the damage done to our judicial system. Like the indisputaby politically motivated indictment of Trump by Bragg, this is the most worrisome to me. R. Bosshardt, MD, FACS
It has it’s gone to the top of the page. It’s on 177 likes so far and I am sure by the end of today it will be over 200. It’s the best post so far on TFP.
Your superb comment highlights the overarching critical issue. It is not what happened in the unknowable encounter in Bergdorf Goodman decades ago. Not even the NY jury's decision, as salient as that may appear to some. It is this endless attempt to destroy the only human with power to stand up to the left's destruction of America and all it has meant to the world.
I had not been a Trump fan until I started to see what he was doing for America when he became president. He was incredibly effective at making America safe secure, and prosperous, and the left would have none of it.
I grew up in Beverly Hills and came to understand some of Hollywood's ways. Trump spoke the truth about celebrities and "Hollywood" women. The "casting couch" was not a one-way proposition. Selling sex for movie roles, fame or fortune is nothing new, and Trump dared to speak "street" truth about such things. He is clearly his own worst enemy, but he is a loyal friend of America.
The critical story is the left's, virtually total control of America's institutions and their willingness to end America. Therefore they must end Trump and they know it. This is what we are watching.
Dr. we need you to get together with other doctors to speak out against this transgender craze. I know the trans mob will come after you, but millions will support you.
Yes I do wonder how the two of them got in a dressing room alone with no one seeing them - and this at Bergdorf Goodman - one of NYC's fanciest stores.
I didn't have the money to buy anything there but I did walk around a lot and there were saleswomen all in black everywhere. The minute you walked in someone came up to "help" you and on every floor there were at least two or three saleswomen present. This store caters to the rich ladies of Park Avenue and they expect saleswomen to act ;ike personal shoppers and be within eyesight all the time ready to help. It definitely wasn't Macy's.
. . This "assault" happened during the time I was in NY so the atomsphere I am describing is what I experienced. T then his brings up the question I have had from the beginning. As I understand it Trump came in looking for a present for Marla and ran into Ms. Carroll on her way out. He asked for her help ignoring the saleswenman I expect were nearby. Trump was very well known in NY at the time and pretty much catered to so I assume saleswoman swarmed him wanting to help -
Somehow Carroll and Trump walked through the store and up the stairs with Ms. Carroll acting as a BG saleswoman and she ended up with Trump in a dressing room Trump was and is a big man with orange hair -the type rarely found in the lingerie dept where I believe this all happened. -But they were never noticed and Ms Carroll didn't scream. It is all very odd.
I think your analysis is dead on. Sounds like Trump could have used you at his trial instead of the high-powered attorneys who undoubtely charged him six figures to represent him! Best, Rick
There was a murder trial in Canada some years back that ended with a conviction. The accused's lawyer was one of Canada's most famous criminal defence lawyers, now deceased. His legal fee was said to have been two million dollars. In the watering holes around the Courthouse the joke by up and coming young lawyers was, "Gee, I could have got him convicted for 500 thou, ...a million, tops."
That's "salesPERSON" missy. LOL maybe sex in the dressing room was common at BG's like the "mile high " club. so salesladies ignored two people who looked like they were together. and exited looking just like they did when they went in. E. Jean authored a highly sexual q/a column ( for the times) 30 years ago. but I agree something smells and it is not Chanel #5
Dorthy, you ask the questions that I hope Trump's lawyers questioned Ms. Carroll on. I don't know how she could credibly answer these questions because yes, it is all very odd and quite frankly, doesn't seem to add up.
That comment clearly reflected the behavior of women who throw themselves and their p*ssies at men with money. Spare us the pearl-clutching, it’s a tale as old as time.
I agree with you. This is the kind of thing stupid high school boys say around each other because they are all afraid to someone will discover that they have never actually held hands with or kissed a girl. Testosterone fueled braggadocio. True or not, hat a supposedly mature, successful, married man said this is another whole story. It was truly weird, the morning after the election night in 2016. I woke up and turned the TV on. Remember, I cannot stand Trump for his personality, self-aggrandizing, and boorish behavior. Even so, when I heard he won, I felt this huge sense of relief, the first such feeling of optimism I'd had in months. All I could do was say a prayer of thanks that it wasn't Hillary. I still can't stand the man, but I liked what he accomplished in his four years. Go figure. All our heros have feet of clay............
A few years ago there was a passing scandal—not saying this sarcastically—where it was discovered that hundreds of rape kits likely containing DNA had never been processed. These could easily have been run through a database, identified and convicted rapists with physical evidence. So you have a he/said she/said trial after 27 years with no physical evidence and get millions of dollars (It was Bergdorfs after all). Or you get violently attacked by perhaps a serial rapist and no one bothers to investigate.
You don't think that Trump would have been recognized by the salespeople at Bergdorf's and left alone? Wealthy, famous people are not treated the same as everyday people like you and me.
why didnt they call the saleswomen on the clock that day? Hmmmm maybe because E Jean didnt know which day it was or month. or season of the year.. but she did call her friends and tell them. none of them remember? was Trump "famous" then? that was 30 years ago.. I never heard of him then. so you think every saleswoman at BG's would recognize him? just because he was rich? many wealthy people shopped at BG;'s. why did the saleswomen let a man in the dressing room? did he burst in like a Viking on a mission? did he sneak in like a ninja? how did it happen? did they stroll in together. ? or giggling like partners doing something risky? did E Jean say it was ok. he is my friend? what exactly happened. no one will ever know.. a classic case of he said she said
Martha my comment later did not make sense. I thought I was in a different thread. Sorry. As for condoning, how could a rape occur in a public department store and not be known. I have never been there but according to the comments of others it was a pretty popular place that was well-staffed. Certainly people were in earshot. To my knowledge there was no testimony that he threatened her. If she did not resist or object would that not mean she consented?
Lynne, it's ok. I sometimes lose track of which thread I am on as well!
I think that many of us have sort of an old-fashioned notion of what rape actually looks like. I think that many us imagine what we'd do in this situation, but until it happens to you, it's hard to really say what you would do. Many rape victims actually describe a complete inability to fight back - during an assault, your mind will actually move into preservation mode. It's the same reaction that causes someone being attacked to curl up in a fetal position. NPR recently had an interview that delves into it:
PFEIFFER: You know, this idea of crying out for help seems to be the opposite reaction than the body does in that moment.
TUERKHEIMER: That's right. Experts know that there are so many reasons why victims may not fight their socialization, which, particularly for girls, may lead someone not to fight. There's the kind of habit that many people develop, particularly if they are the victims of childhood sexual abuse, that may lead them to what seems like passivity. There's the freezing mechanism, the sort of immobility that neuroscientists understand is a common response to assault. And then there's self-preservation, which is that sometimes it can feel safer and it can be safer not to fight back."
I've been in the lingerie department of a large store (in fact, just a couple of weeks ago, in a Macy's) and been completely alone. It's not hard for me to imagine that nobody was around, or that perhaps sales staff did hear something but assumed it was consensual. Remember, the prosecution called almost a dozen witnesses, including former employees of Bergdorf who said: "She testified that on Thursday evenings during the 1990s, the sixth floor of the luxury department store wasn’t very busy, that an attendant wasn’t always present in the lingerie department and that the dressing rooms were sometimes unlocked."
I'm not even sure what that means. It's not about politics. It's about understanding that medicine has traditionally used white men as the template; and all others as deviant.
Do you dispute that black men and women were used for medical experimentation?
I think you have pretty much admitted it probably didn't happen. You just want it to have, which is a stain on you for hoping that a woman was really raped when she really wasn't.
Was thinking all the same thing- and Ms Carroll chose to go into the dressing room w Mr Trump to help him decide on a handbag or a hat? Hmmm Did they know each other before this exchange? Did she work for Trump at the time? Did she feel a job or career was on the line if she didn't say YES to Trump- answers to all these questions would provide more context for me. Maybe I have to buy her book- lol
You said everything I’m thinking, only so much more eloquently. Yes, Trump is a boor whom I personally dislike. But legislative action focused on his political persecution is far more troubling than anything he may or may not have done 30 years ago, in a “locked dressing room”--which I too wonder about, since I can’t imagine its necessity for purchasing a bag or a hat as a gift.
And yes, Dershowitz’s is the sole rational, objective voice in this bowl of crap soup. Goldberg only states what’s obvious--at least to those of the same political persuasion--but apparently thinks a large vocabulary is a substitute for original insight. The biology professor spinning Trump’s offhand reference to “a million years” into some bizarre evolutionary theory pretty much epitomizes what’s wrong with academia these days. And Gutierrez’s statement that 30 years ago, women were expected to simply put up with this behavior is bizarre. There were rape and assault laws then, and yes, it could be difficult to pursue them with powerful men--say, for example, ones with last names like Biden or Clinton.
Not sure I agree on one aspect of your comments: I suspect Democrats are not too troubled by all this -- they want Trump to run (they should) because he would be the most disgusting opponent possible for their guy in the nursing home.
What a contest 2024 may be -- a guy in a nursing home against a guy in prison!
A Kauffman, This is a win/win for the dems. Either they prevent Trump from running or they add to their pile of ammunition and dirt to throw at him in a general election. Don't think they won't pull out every negative in Trump's background and we will hear more about "pussy grabbing" and sexual assualt than anyone should have to be subjected to. They will be relentless. Unfortunately, as pointed out in the article, it was Trump's own mouth and inability to control his tongue that got him into this in the first place. If he had just shut up.... no defamation trial. James 34-5. Rick
Even Trump’s supporters don’t like him. They vote for him for a different reason, not based on integrity or morality. They vote for him because he is a gladiator, tirelessly pushing back against the progressive agenda, protecting their constitutional rights, willing to take the blows along the way. This trial was a witch hunt, just as Trump claims. The facts are not beyond a reasonable doubt, the venue was partisan, the allegations absurdly out of date. She claimed she was raped but apparently that little detail was not credible. So “only” sexually assaulted? Did she lie about the rape part, falling back on the assault charge as a default?
I didn’t vote for Trump the first time because of his character and demeanor. But I couldn’t vote for Hillary either because of her elitism, corruption and progressive agenda. The relentless daily media outrage over the tiniest things, many fabricated (looking at you Adam Schiff and Russia collusion) destroyed 4 years when America could have made much more headway against lots of issues. Sickening political garbage.
I think you are 100% correct! All elections are about a choice, even if both are bad. The Dem's think anyone who has or will vote for DJT is evil or at a minimum, not very bright. I think they are totally wrong about that.
I suspect 60-80+% of American's think Washington is broken and has been far too long. Electing Hillary or Biden was more of the same and DJT was not. It is that simple!
It does seem strange that the jury dismissed her charge of rape—basically deeming her a liar—but believed her charge of sexual assault, relying on her word alone.
I suspect the jury’s thinking was that, based even on Trump’s own words from that Access Hollywood tape, he’s capable of such actions so why not convict him in this case on that.
I’m no Trump fan, but he tends to be his own worst enemy, making it easy for opponents to use—and abuse—the law against him.
I agree with you but the Reps missed and continue to miss a chance in accusing the ever senile Joe of pedophilia. Just look at the videos and quote his daughter's diary where she says she took showers with Joe. That makes my skin crawl.
I find most politicians disgusting regardless of stripe. I have said many times, we do not elect the best or the brightest.
I would edit that to say "most" are compromised but your point is well taken. Trump openly mocked the republican weenies residing in that crowd. It made him many enemies, McConnell, Romney, Cheney... come to mind but more importantly it endeared him to the "deplorables" crowd who gravitated to someone bold and brash enough to say very loudly what was so obvious to them. It wouldn't be too bold to predict this conviction will be overturned.
Whether it is or not, his supporters will see it as another example of a two-tiered legal system where Trump gets charged while former Biden staffer Tara Reade’s charges of rape against him are ignored.
I thought the Dems loved sexual predators. They knew bill Clinton was a sexual predator before the ran for president but did the "Feminist Party" reject him? No, they didn't instead they called his victims bimbos and did their sycophants in the press.
When in his presidency women we coming forward complaining about him the Dem party defended him. By their own standards they should be glorifying and supporting Trump.
The Democrats' support of Bill Clinton has given them ZERO credibility when it comes to #MeToo. Even the feminists made it very clear at the time that power was far more important than any individual woman who had been sexually abused by Bill Clinton.
For a while, there were enough former governors of Illinois in prison that it was a frequent joke that any candidate for governor should simply be tossed in jail upon election.
I also thought Alan Dershowitz had the best take - really the only one worth reading.
I also detest the smarmy condescension and better-then-thou attitude of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden more than I dislike anything about Trump. I voted for Obama once and against him the second time. His policies/actions were terrible.
I do really hope for a President DeSantis and I think many Dems are pulling for Trump to be the R nominee.
Why do we not see more articles about the clear intellectual incapacity of our current President? Why do we not see some stories about the $10 million laundered money Biden took from countries like China?
"@ByronDonalds
The Biden Family doesn’t have a business.
There is no business structure around this family except POLITICS.
This is Pulitzer Prize stuff. Unfortunately, the media is in the back pocket of the Biden Crime Family."
"If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself."
Why did you feel the need to trot out your bona fides before getting to your point? Are you afraid someone would accuse you of being a misogynist? You write like a timid person. Speak your piece. Or don't. But don't try to prove up what a decent person you are as though that buttresses your opinion. Your opinion rests on its own merits, or not. But not on your decency. Don't worry, cancel culture isn't coming for you, sir.
P.S. Why do you post with an MD after your name? This Substack is not your waiting room and we do not care about your occupation.
RBM- Wow! Thank you for that. I hope that you feel better after venting that to someone you don't know even know. I post my MD because that gives me a different perspective then someone without that background. I am 70 and nearing retirement so the last thing I am trying to do is promote myself or my practice. As to your comment on cancel culture, you are dead wrong. I was cancelled for life from access to my fellow surgeons by the American College of Surgeons because I dared to call out the leadership for installing critical ract theory into the ACS. Timid? Don't make me laugh. Misogynist? Stop! You're killing me. LOL.
What I liked and appreciated the most about your post is establishing your credentials as a husband, father and grandfather to women, as am I. You and I are hyper sensitized to the societal threats aimed at women. Not to the degree of a woman I'm sure but as much as a man can be.
Dont worry - Running Burning Man and a few of the bros on this site have a nasty habit of personal attacks. I've been on the receiving end myself.
I think it comes from insecurity- it often happens when they feel intellectually challenged by a post. Somehow it threatens their manhood when things are not put forward in black and white and have some level of nuance and context. They bear a grudge against any depth of thought.
I appreciated your take on this. Women need to be protected and believed. Yet there are also political machinations at play here. Ultimately, Trump is a liability. His grotesquely sexist views are not aligned with modern day rights for women. His boorish and Neanderthall way of talking is not up to scratch for a woeld leader. And more's the pity. His actual 4 years were some of the best America's seen and largely due to his advisors and whom he chose to listen to behibn closed doors.
Yet Republicans shoot themselves in the foot when they pick such a questionable character to represent them. What a sad waste and a tragedy to have someone with so much potential to improve the country have such terrible flaws. Harvey Weinstein too, was a major talent. But that's not enough to excuse his abhorrent behavior either.
"Ultimately, Trump is a liability. His grotesquely sexist views are not aligned with modern day rights for women. His boorish and Neanderthall way of talking is not up to scratch for a woeld leader. And more's the pity. His actual 4 years were some of the best America's seen and largely due to his advisors and whom he chose to listen to behibn closed doors."
I agree with your first three sentences. I'm scratching my head over the last two. From all we've now heard, it was only a handful of people who managed to limit somewhat the extraordinary damage he did to our nation and our democracy. It's taken Biden three years to start to dig us out of this mess.
"I was cancelled for life from access to my fellow surgeons by the American College of Surgeons because I dared to call out the leadership for installing critical ract theory into the ACS."
Oh. Now I get it. I'm sorry but if medical professionals can't acknowledge the lengthy history of racism in medical practice then we have some bigger issues here.
Martha, there are, no doubt, issues with racism in the delivery of medical care, but bullying white people with the lunacy of "critical race theory" will not address these issues. In fact, it will make it worse.
@pacificus are white people so terribly fragile that we can't acknowledge the deep systemic racism that has, and continues to, plague medical practice? Just this past week, in 2023, did the recommendations for mammograms finally change to start at 40 years of age instead of 50. Why? Because the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology finally started looking at data sets that include black women.
When someone points out my own racist language and assumptions, I don't consider it "bullying," I consider it trying to educate me.
Martha, "fragility" has nothing to do with it, though I do note that you have adopted the vocabulary of CRT, and internalized the idea that you are yourself a racist. I'm guessing that's not true, even if it is true that we are, one hopes, always striving to grow and evolve when it comes to better race relations.
Long story short: the false and hateful assumptions at the core of CRT, despite the claims of its proponents, are not the only way
to address racial issues. Thats where I'm coming from.
Fragility is simply the left wing equivalent of the right wing’s snowflake. It’s a poor attempt to silence people who have a valid point because you aren’t capable or can’t be bothered with refuting said point.
Martha, do you have any idea what you are talking about? It's hardly about acknowledging past racism. I suggest you review the philosophical origins of DEI and critical consciousness. You will soon learn that critical race theory is essentially race-based Marxism. Opposition to it has zero to do with what you seemingly naively state it does.
George, yes, I do know what I am talking about. Do you? Because CRT has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. (For that matter, do you understand Marxism? Have you read Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto? )
CRT has been around for over 40 years and is simply a framework that starts with the idea that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. That's it. The right-wing has made it into some weird dog-whistle bogeyman without taking the time to understand what it is and why it's useful.
When you say CRT has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism, it betrays a level of ignorance that makes it seem pointless to try to explain it to you, but I will try.
We think that Marx was talking about economics because he talked about economics a lot (Das Kapital). We know Marx' hypothesis (seize the means of production to bring socialism to the world). But if we think he means it's about capital (factories, hammers, sickles), we miss what he means. Marx was a theologian more than an economist.
Marx' idea was that there is a special form of property that segregates society into the people who have (the bourgeoisie) and people that do not have (the proletariat) who are in class conflict, with an ideology that keeps it in place (capitalism). The underclass must awaken with consciousness to fight back and seize the means of production of that form of deterministic property.
Change out class with race, and CRT falls right out of the hat.
In 1993 Cheryl Harris wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review called Whiteness as Property. She explained that whiteness, or white privilege, constitutes a kind of cultural private property, and said that it must be abolished in order to have racial justice, just like Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that Communism can be defined in a single sentence....the abolition of private property. This is why CRT calls to abolish whiteness, because whiteness is a form of private property. People who have access to this property are whites, or "white adjacent" or they "act white" (the bourgeoisie). People without are "people of color" (proletariat) and are oppressed by systemic racism. Systemic racism is enforced by an ideology of white supremacy (instead of capitalism).
If you think of whiteness as a form of cultural capital, white supremacy as they define it is identical to capitalism. It's not believing white people are superior. It's believing white people have access to the control of society and should maintain that. Even if you don't actually believe that...if you merely support that you have adopted the ideology of white supremacy in your mind. It is the exact same system of thought as economic Marxism. The goal is to awaken a racial consciousness in people so that they will band together as a class and seize the means of cultural production so that white cultural production is no longer the dominant mode.
It is not about history at all, it is not about slavery at all...those are excuses they use. It is about creating a class consciousness that is against the form of property called whiteness...that is against this dominant culture. It is a means for people to come together to channel resentment and try to claim power. Lindsey defines CRT as calling everything you want to control racist until you control it. Can you not say the same thing about Marxism? Calling everything you want to control bourgeoisie until you control it?
This is the exact same way of thinking about the world. The goal is always to seize the means of control of the production of man and history and society. Marx merely believed it was through economic means....now it is through socio-cultural means. CRT is merely a species of the genus Marxism. Marxism failed in capitalistic societies because Marx was wrong, but the virus evolved. The Frankfurt School evolved these ideas further into critical Marxism with Max Horkheimer developing the critical theory, saying that it is not possible to articulate the vision of a good society on the terms of the existing society. So critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the existing society. Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to Marxist conflict analysis.
Marcuse said the working class is no longer going to be the base of the revolution because of the success of capitalism. The energy is somewhere else...in the racial and sexual minorities, the feminists, the outsiders...those are who have the energy for a Marxist revolution in the west, not the working class.
I hope that helps you understand what actually is going on. Does this sound like a weird dog-whistle bogeyman to you?
No one denies the history of racism. My objection is to blame everything on racism and seeking to bring down society and all institutions as irredemably racist. Don't forget slavery but remember the Emancipation Proclamation drafted by a bunch of dead white guys, not to mention 300,000 dead, most of them white, to free slaves. The problem with continuing to stress historical racism is that it is historical. You cannot change that. We can do better moving forward and have, until the new radical CRT advocates charged America with systemic racism. Remember Jim Crow but don't forget the Civil Rights movement. You need to educate yourself on critical race theory. I recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, then read Ibram Kendi's book. Aren't we getting away from the topic of this thread?
I've read a couple of Kendi's books - are you sure you have?
Who is blaming "everything" on racism? As I said above, CRT is a framework through which to examine assumptions- that's it. If you think racism is "historical" and doesn't exist in the modern era (a statement which is demonstrably untrue) then what exactly do you mean by "we can do better?" Either there is a problem or there isn't - which is it?
But yes, we've strayed from the original topic, which was your comment that Trump couldn't possibly be guilty of actually doing the very thing he was recorded bragging about doing; because somehow the "liberals plotted to use the justice system against him." The mental gymnastics that conservatives jump through to avoid simply accepting that Trump is a manipulative piece of garbage would be amusing, were it not doing real damage to our country.
Martha, I will not engage you further after this reply. I said nothing regarding Trump's guilt or lack thereof. You made that up. Go back and read what I said, without the lens of leftist outrage or Trump derangement. Peace.
I suspect you are correct that Trump is something like a "manipulative piece of garbage". BUT, he was and is better able to deal with America's problems than Joe Biden.
My strong preference is that neither is the 2024 nominee!
so. now mamos are at 40. why end them at 74? is that racist too? what we can appreciate is that lives will be saved. what we can appreciate is that not everything js racist..sometimes it just has been proven to aid humanity..and save tlives..should men get mamos? they also get breast cancer.. is that racist that they dont get them. or just stats?
"I post my MD because that gives me a different perspective then someone without that background."
We've all got "different perspectives" doc. Your work as an MD does not offer you any greater insight into the problems of society. Indeed, you admission that the American College of Surgeons has now black balled you because of your political views is an admission by you that docs have no special insights about political matters. I'd have thought you'd have the insight to understand that.
Gee, Running Burning Man, I think your argument just redefined “desperation” for me. Because the Star Chamber enforced political orthodoxy over medical competence, then the accused must be just like them because, after all, they are all doctors. Guess you couldn’t challenge the message, so you shot the messenger.
You utterly missed my point. Doc Bosshardt claimed that his being an MD gave him special insight over the behavior in matters of others without an MD. But then he admitted that a host of docs found his political views intolerable and tossed himont of the society. So, no, docs have no special wisdom on non-medical things. The point - rather obviously - is that docs have no special insight to things outside the profession.
Didn't think that was so hard to get. But apparently I was wrong.
I am.betting his opposition to installation of DIE practices and theory at ACS is that it is politicization of medical practice. is that something you support?
You might have missed my point. I agree that ACS and many other medical societies, journals, med schools, etc., have adopted the "systemic racism is all around us" narrative. That proves my point that medical doctors walk on very thin ice when opining outside their professional expertise. Thus my original comment that neither MD nor his throat clearing, virtue signaling opening added nothing to his perspective and why I objected to his preface.
making that point. I was surprised at your comment having seen others you posted here. While I disagree with your criticism of the good doctor's preface to his comment, it is your opinion and you are entitled thereto. My point went to his comment about his statements to his professional group and criticism therefor. As a member of his group I think he should be lauded for pushing back against the politicization of his profession. Frankly I wish there were more would. I certainly do not think he is forbidden from opining on here though. This is a public forum.and if he is willing to do so under his real name more power to him.
Not trolling, as you might know from my other comments here. Sorry if pointing out your ego as a doc - a common shortcoming of physicians - struck a nerve. You might have learned from the experience. Alas, not.
Imo this one doesn't come off as trotting out bona fides. He's clarifying that he is not commenting from a biased POV. The usual preambles like this in posts and comments are done when the commenter defends the opposite side to which he or she is not aligned. He's not doing that. He's explaining how someone from his position sees this.
Thank you, you saved me a lot of writing and you said it much more eloquently than I would have. The only thing that I would add is that more and more I see these continual allegations against Trump as witch hunts not specifically against Trump but as attacks against a political outsider whole dares to push back against the political ruling class. This is what concerns me the most. I would expect any threat to the existing political duopoly to receive the same amount of personal attacks and unfortunately I am becoming less and less likely to give credence to accusers.
Right out of Hitler’s playbook. Everything Hitler did was blessed by the courts, and any law could be changed if necessary. Sound familiar?
Perhaps the Democrats aren’t as stupid as they appear, and want to see Trump as the martyred 2024 presidential candidate, rather than a more likeable and eloquent Reagan-like contender whom one could vote for without holding one’s nose.
So grateful to you sir, for the intelligence and pure decency of your response. It is clear that many others are also appreciative. This was no “win for women.” It was a grave loss for our country and the rule of law.
All of the most anti-Trump writers essentially wrote "He's convicted because we hate him". It's as if even they don't believe that he is literally guilty.
Very well said. What I don't understand is, this is a she said, he said case. Without witnesses to verify what she claimed, how can you convict?
I could say I was assaulted by Nancy Pelosi in a phone booth in San Francisco. Will I get $5 million dollars and a lot of counseling because it was a horrify, disgusting experience? Just thinking about it makes me shudder.
As a side note, I wouldn't put past that arrogant megalomaniac to have assaulted her.
He was neither convicted nor found guilty because this was a civil case
He was found liable for damages. The burden of proof in a civil case is by a preponderance of the evidence. It is the lowest burden in our system.of justice and just means the jury has to believe it more likely than not happened.
I posted this separately, but it is so far down, no one will see it, so I repeat it here as a comment.
Around 1970, I was assaulted while serving in the US Air Force. Happened during working hours. After deliberating all night, I reported it the next morning. The Air Force OSI, investigated by interviewing many other women, civilian and military whom this man had had contact with. They found many previously unreported incidents with other women. We were all witnesses at his court-martial. The whole thing was scary for a young woman: the deposition with this man present, the actual court-martial....I was only woman in the room during the proceeding. I do not understand why women do not report assaults at the time they happen. I think reporting is part of the moving on process. BTW, I believed Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford. If they were lying, they are great actors. A full Colonel traveled to my parents home to thank them for what I had done.
Thank you for your courage to report. As a young woman, perhaps at a lower rank, you took a great risk and your timely reporting stopped that person and sent a strong message to other abusers.
When it comes to celebrities like Amber Heard, Hill, or Blasey Ford that becomes so distorted in the press that it is beyond my abilities to decide.
Thank you for your service. You have my sympathy for what happened to you and my admiration for speaking up about it. There is no telling how many women you saved from a similar fate.
I can’t say whether Trump was guilty of this infraction or not, but you, who have daughters and granddaughters you love, have you not noticed the generally denigrating way DJT talks about women? And that doesn’t come across as smarmy, and better-than-thou to you? I grieve I have no one to vote for, but please, is voting for someone who has no problem denigrating women verbally really acceptable to you?
No, but neither is voting for someone I consider a traitor to this country who used his drug addled son as a bag man and has lined his pockets with Chinese money. There is a great deal more evidence for that than for Trump's unwitnessed assault in a changing room at Berdorf Goodman thirty years ago.
It’s hard to think of this as anything but lawfare, part of a DNC-coordinated campaign of legal and financial harassment designed to punish Trump for being president and prevent him from running again. After Christine Blasey Ford, it’s hard to believe any woman with a decades-old “he said, she said” allegation.
Billionaire Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman funded the lawsuit. New York changed its laws last year to provide a one year window to go beyond the statute of limitations. All of this stinks to high heaven, but the narrative must be set. No coincidence this happens right as the House oversight committee discovers Biden family taking millions from foreign governments. Will The Free Press cover what was on Hunter's laptop or Tara Reade's accusations against Joe? How would MSM react if Donald Trump Jr fathered a child who he refuses to acknowledge and is trying to reduce child support payments for? Navy Biden - say her name! https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/say-her-name-navy-biden
Not "ex post facto" in the least. If it happened 30 years ago, it was wrong then. And actionable at the time. All that changed is the statute of limitations for filling a claim was extended. Yes, it actually was resurrected, but that is not ex post facto.
Disagree RBM. It is one thing retroactively to amend a statute of limitations to apply to a sex crime against a child, who didn't have the capacity to bring a complaint. Not so with a 52 year old woman. Moreover, if the change really was directed to "get Trump," it would also be a constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.
No, no. Wrong. Think again. It is not a question of capacity or anything like that. The act was unlawful when done. It still is wrong. But the time to file expired. The filing period was resurrected by the legislature; it did not create a wrong that was not a wrong at the time.
And children CAN bring claims despite being minors. That is what guardians or "next friends" do in the name of the child. The reason kids didn't sue is because they rarely told anyone about the abuse - a priest, uncle, next door neighbor would intimidate with power, position, or words such that the minor would remain silent.
And it is not a "bill of attainder" either. Those are things that the legislature does to impose liability on a specific person without a trial or due process. No such bill was passed in NY. Trump had a trial. And he is not deprived of property - other than the damages of this case. He can still own property, bequeath its, etc., which bills of attainder would have prohibited.
The legislature cannot revive a clam that's been extinguished which is what the statute of limitations in effect did when it ran on Carroll. "Consequently, to resurrect a prosecution after the relevant statute of limitations has expired is to eliminate a currently existing conclusive presumption forbidding prosecution, and thereby to permit conviction on a quantum of evidence where that quantum, at the time the new law is enacted, would have been legally insufficient. And, in that sense, the new law would “violate” previous evidence-related legal rules by authorizing the courts to “ ‘receiv[e] evidence ... which the courts of justice would not [previously have] admit[ted]’ ” as sufficient proof of a crime,
Stogner v California, 539 US 607, 616.(2003).
You also err on a bill of attainder. If the change in the law was enacted to facilitate an action against Trump it is a classic bill of attainder. "Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life, liberty, or property of particular named persons, because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. United States v Lovett, 328 US 303, 317 (1946).
A civil statute. Not criminal. And yet left wing states are outlawing the ability for children being genitally mutilated to ever file a civil lawsuit against the providers doing so. There is no non-political reason to do that. It’s not logical to make docs immune from one of the most consequential and still experimental medical interventions being performed on children with healthy bodies. It’s political and ideological.
Providing this one year window was entirely political. Moreover, a NY jury would convict Trump in a civil court if there was an unsolved murder within a mile of where he lived when he was 2 years old.
This stuff is all so silly. And pointless. It’s just more “get Trump” nonsense meant to enrage his base. There is plenty to go after Trump for - he’s the one who originally called for a national shut down. But lefties won’t go after that because that wouldn’t enrage Trump’s base to support, it might make them actually change their minds and support a more electable candidate who wasn’t so stupid with Covid. They also can’t do it because Biden and Newsome are more authoritarian than most people would have considered possible in the country as recently as 2019.
And THIS! Yuri, you nailed it- It's like a badly officiated basketball game where fouls are constantly called on only one team yet never on the other team. A foul is a foul and should be called on EVERYONE COMMITTING THEM-
Only consensual in the sense that she agreed to participate. She was a White House intern. That means that Bill Clinton was both her boss and her teacher. Add in the fact that he was two decades her senior, and you have three very good reasons why he had an ETHICAL (not merely moral) obligation to reject any advances she might have made toward him.
I am old enough to remember when Gary Hart had to drop out of the Democratic primaries because he was spotted on a yacht with a woman who was not his wife. Democrats' acceptance of Bill Clinton's behavior changed everything. A man like Trump had no chance of receiving the nomination back in 1988. Even John Edwards had to drop out of the primaries not because he was cheating on his wife, but because he was cheating on her while she had cancer.
Oh Celia you will never catch me making a claim that a Clinton is moral or ethical. While there are many issues with getting BJs, even consensual ones, in the Oval Office it was not a sexual crime
I wondered about her but do not remember the details. I vaguely recall an that an Arkansas state trooper on his security detail corroborated her account though. I am not a Clintonite.
Along with others who have commented - it is not that those of us who voted for Trump excuse the behavior, it is the double standard. The evidence against Biden and his son is a mile long and the crimes are serious, treasonous serious. Nothing is done. This sends decent people with critical thinking skills back to policy as our primary determinant in which candidate to support. Honestly, we don’t know if Trump did these things or not - or Biden for that matter, but I do appreciate Trump’s policies more. What is a person to do? My hope is that a conservative candidate without the social baggage will win the Republican nomination...I have one in mind 😊
No other conservative candidate will win. Trump won because he is not like the other GOP contenders - he fights. DeSantis is not the conservative he may seem to be; he is playing a role to become the preferred Trump alternative.
what do you think happened? called ROM. run out (of) money.. and carefully squelched. get on over to Racket and read about the organizations running this country. bravo to brave men and women like Schellenberger, Tiabbi and Fang ( and on occasion Bari) who dare to expose the truth. we are being manipulated and conned every single day. this is just one more con job
What do I think happened. Well, as was reported at the time, they actually bailed because they could not corroborate her story of being raped in the hallway of the Russell Building during work hours.
Actually, it's not. Not that I really care. The ones in the past from Nellie were unexpected though.
Apparently, people don't get sarcasm and are not aware that Reade had legal representation re: Biden, but they bailed. So, most of the "likes" are probably based on ignorance.
Worried what won't last? Joining the MAGA echo chamber?
No. That usually happens when your legal representation cannot find corroboration for your claim that you were raped in the hallway of the Senate Russell Building during the workday.
What were the "certain levels" you are referring to?
I also notice the Free Press overlooks real corruption evidence being presented against Biden. This publication gets far too silly far too often, while ignoring actual stories with actual evidence of events that both actually occurred, and occurred after my elementary school days. The Racket and Public and countless others are more than superficial nonsense. They are worth the fee.
Just imagine if Ivanka's diary has spoken of her father showering with her. Or if Donald, Jr.'s e-mail had spoken about Russian payments and reserving 10% for "the Big Guy." Or if Eric Trump had lied on a federal firearms application...........
Agree. He's lost so much socially to take the side of law...not the side of Trump, but too many perceive that's what he's doing. I don't love him (OJ was definitely guilty), but I do love that he stands with the law. The judge in this case was totally biased.
Yes, FP's willing blindness to the perfidy of the Left is routinely extremely disappointing, but, hey, Bari was liberal enough to work for the NYT (for a time). A good example is that nowhere in her article about the "unanimous verdict" is there a mention that they found AGAINST her on the rape charge (you have to read down to Dershowitz's response to find that out). So, they found her not to be telling the truth about the most serious charge (since this case lacked any corroborating evidence). At least we found the limits of a New Yorker's hatred for Trump - they won't call him a rapist on this flimsy evidence. Oh, by the way, he wasn't "convicted" of anything. This was a civil case, where the burden of proof is a "mere preponderance," not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Between the ever fluffy stories we’ve been subjected to as of late and the strong left bias, I’m beginning to wonder why I subscribe to the “Free Press.” I’m not sure how much more of this I can take.
I’ve turned off subscriptions before. I tried again. I turned off my renewal this morning. I’m not sure anyone dislikes Trump more than Matt Taibbi, but it doesn’t stop him/ The Racket from reporting truthfully on important topics. Same with The Public. People have turned away from legacy media because it’s silly stories, biased coverage, factually wrong, and pure propaganda. I’m increasingly not able to differentiate legacy media nonsense from The Free Press anymore. It’s the same thing - ignoring big stories, promoting silly ones, coverage that is nothing more than biased coverage of left wing talking points.
I also subscribe to the Racket and The Public. They are leagues above the Free Press in the quality of the reporting. There is simply no comparison. I only read the Free Press when I want to read something that doesn’t require much thinking. It’s perfect for that! But you are right—the Free Press is increasingly as irrelevant as the legacy media.
I’ve been hanging on by a thread for a long time with my subscription. This article just might be the last straw.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It can be lawfare, and a decades-old "he said, she said" allegation can be true, without all such allegations being true.
I am certain that you have never been raped, from your comment, and that you trivialize something about which you know nothing.
I was date raped at 15, a very innocent virginity stolen from me, in an era when the term date rape did not exist. I had trouble making sense of what had happened, that someone I knew could intentionally use force to rape me. I knew there was no point in telling anyone, that there were no witnesses, that I would be the one to be humiliated and suffer.
It changed my entire life. It changed my ability to trust. It changed my ability to experience arousal. I got therapy decades later, but your dismissal of being raped personally disgusts me, Mark. I can not express this strongly enough.
I've been sexually assaulted and yet I still see this as a blatantly politicized sham trial and an abuse of our justice system. I think trials like this hurt real victims most, just like Jussie Smollet style fake hate crimes damage the credibility of real victims of hate crimes.
Just because someone is skeptical of this outlandish 27 year-old story doesn't mean they are dismissing the trauma of rape. Women should be encouraged to report such incidents promptly to get rapists off the streets rather than sitting on claims for decades. And Tara Reade's sexual assault claim against Biden, who she worked with, is more credible than Ms. Carroll's claim against a man she didn't know.
You have my sympathy for what you endured. The problem with this Carroll thing is it serves no one well. Women who lie about being raped trivialize rape and minimize actual victims thereof. I do not know whst happened between them. But I am.here to tell you that there is no way to mount a defense 30 years later. Particularly with no day, month or year specified.
So, not one comment defending Trump? C'mon, give me a break. A mixed and perplexing verdict and not one word saying maybe they got it wrong?? I don't honestly know what happened in this case but I don't read The Free Press to get legacy media bile vomited all over me.
Also Epstein's pals, and never forget that every feminist and liberal in California knew exactly what Harvey was doing, and they kept their silence for decades.
Yes, and Hillary Clinton, the greatest feminist of all time, went to great lengths to discredit the women who accused her husband. She didn't have to become their best friend but she should not have vilified them the extent that she did.
Now zKsthy from Boston that is wrong. I heard her say with my own ears that she was no Tammy Wynette standing by her man! Complete with a faux southern accent. 😉
Waste of money. The limitation period expired long ago. Most of those who tell the story aren’t smart enough to show Reade as she was at the time of the alleged assault. She was not overweight and she was very pretty.
Well, she said Biden raped her in the hallway of the Russell Building during work hours. Believe she did have some attorneys at one point. Not sure what happened with that.
Completely ignored by everyone is the simple fact that there isn’t any evidence of anything.
Freedom rests on simple foundations that have proven over the centuries to be immovable and irreplaceable. One of those foundations is that there must be proof of guilt.
Liberals are deliberately destroying our cities, our borders, and our freedoms, one after the other, and celebrating their destruction.
Of course it’s not credible. And it always required corroboration in the past. If this precedent stands, anybody can be accused of anything at anytime in the past and be forced to pay simply by placing the invented event in a specific court.
Murdaugh was convicted because he originally said he was not at the scene, and, surprise, video on his son"s phone placed him.there minutes before the shooting.
the judge if there is no jury, is the sole judge of the credibility of the evidence. I do not believe corroboration is required. Certainly not in a civil matter. Prosecutors are traditionally reluctant to bring g a criminal case on.just the alleged victim's testimony though.
Even if it is evidence, I thought to be convicted you had to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How can you not have reasonable doubt if the only evidence is the victims word?
To be convicted of a crime you must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused must also be present throughout the trial...This was a civil case though and the burden of proof was by a preponderance of the evidence. That is the easiest burden in our system and is just more likely than not. Obviously the jury found her credible.
She waits almost 30 years to make a formal accusation when the man enters politics! Yeah, that’s not suspicious at all! She and Blasey-Ford. Both mentally unstable women.
I kept reading (or rather skimming) hoping to find one on the other side. Dershowitz was the closet she’d go. Too bad she’s unwilling to be non partisan
I am considering the same, but I do enjoy the lively comment section debate, even if I sometimes vehemently disagree with the focus of the writer. We'll have to see over the upcoming months.
I assume the Free Press also feels the same urgency to immediately report on the House Oversight & Accountability Committee’s findings of nine Biden family members receiving over $10 million in payments from foreign nationals to their 20 different “companies” after their review of thousands of subpoenaed records and the Biden family’s attempts at concealing them. Should be hitting my inbox any minute now....
Bari runs defense for the really serious stuff by ignoring it, and normalizes leftist extremism with mild criticisms and light hearted jokes so we can all get used to the new normal. Which is sexual assault as a political weapon, partisan enforcement of the law, mandatory participation in the DEI religion, etc etc.
"The press are not here to fix things, they are here to help us accept and normalize them"
Nope not hitting yours or mine any time soon, the FP is only interest in Donald Trump and then mostly the negative parts which are manufactured by the Deep State anyway.
This is a lot like a white jury convicting a black man in the Deep South at the height of Jim Crow of, well, ANYTHING, but certainly sexually assaulting a white woman. The charges are thirty years old, and it is her word against his. What nonsense. It's a political hit job funded by left wing activists, like Reid Hoffman, whose funding was not allowed to be mentioned in the court: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-cant-discuss-billionaire-funding-carroll-rape-lawsuit-judge-2023-4
When the Left cares about the VERY credible rape allegations made by Tara Reade against Joe Biden--she mentioned them immediately to her friends, and had been an enthusiastic Democrat and political supporter of Joe Biden, which is why he thought she was "into" him--then, hell, who are we kidding? When the Left cares about any principle whatsoever, then it will stop being the Left and become Liberal. That cannot be anticipated any time soon, and if they win, not in any of our lifetimes or those of our children, since we will all be living in a technologically airtight tyranny.
Barry, the Left DOESN’T CARE about rape allegations or sexual assaults!
Remember how the Left defended Bill Clinton’s behavior (in the Oval Office, no less!), and even Hillary “defamed his accusers”? And, Lewinsky had proof positive with his semen on her blue dress! But, “nothing to see here” and, “that’s private” and “if Hillary forgives him then who are we to judge”!
No proof positive against Trump, but “Orange Man Bad” Right?!?!
I have not followed this much but I am curious who served on the jury. Their politics etc. I think that's a fair question . I assume that was a big part of your post
It was in New York. What else do you need to know? They also reached a guilty verdict on a thirty year old charge for which ZERO empirical evidence existed.
Excuse my subtlety. Thats exactly what I was seeking to ferret out. The inverse of the DC jury that found Sussman innocent. The odds of Trump getting an unbiased jury in NYC is nil. That was the point I was getting at. Again subtlely.
And I am by no means commenting on Trump or his character. I want a fair system of justice. Of the writers Bari chose only Prof D cares about fairness and consistency and the rule of law.
That was a bit of a reach even for you, wasn't it? Certainly willful obtuseness can be made a habit, but it must have taken considerable effort to power over the obvious claim I was making, which was that it would be nearly impossible to find a jury or judge in New York able or willing to give Trump a fair trial. Bias in courtrooms is injustice. Perhaps you can find yourself agreeing with that, since that is no doubt a belief you hold too, at least outwardly and when convenient?
But if you want go there, let's. You are right: 30 years is an absurd amount of time to pass before a case is brought which consists in entirely in unbacked allegations for which no hard evidence exists.
And how COULD Trump bring to bear a witness to something that didn't happen? How could any he or she say they saw him not touching her somewhere, or even remember where they were the day this didn't happen? Certainly, if you have prepared a legal hit job you can find people to support you, but in my analogy that is white people willing to support their own.
No, the analogy is solid. I stand by it. It was an unfair trial in a hostile courtroom, adjudicated by dishonest and hateful people.
Trump is no saint. He is a serial philanderer, certainly, and on his third wife. But he is no rapist, unlike Biden, or in all likelihood, his crack smoking creep of a son.
Your first sentence is a straw man. Barry analogized with a biased trial by whites during Jim Crow, not a lynching outside of a courtroom. But soldier on...
Lol. Not a stawman at all. Compared Trump's legal treatment to black people living under Jim Crow. It was very clear. Weird take, but par for the course around here. But soldier on, Jeff, cause it was a great take.
Bari, I see you still haven't figured out the meaning of "toady." Ask Joe Rogan, or better yet, Tulsi Gabbard. This article is anything but fair or balanced. It's undisguised toady-ism.
I came here to get away from the nonstop Trump Hate echo chamber. I came here for a respite from the noise. Yes, Trump is a rich self entitled asshat. Yes, New York State in their ever ending strategy to dig up every skeleton in Trump’s closet and “win” a political war so the headlines can read “we got him” race, essentially made it possible for a 30 year old disgusting act from a self indulged asshat to be turned into a real civil suit and be heard in our once renowned legal system. As if we all didn’t know the asshat we elected was an asshat. As if the NY Kangaroo show trial that just concluded was a “victory”.
I came here to get away from the echo chamber in the media…isn’t that the same reason you gave me this delicious place to come? Don’t ruin it by becoming everyone else. This Trump hating pile-on seems to be your tipping point. Find a better way to discuss this.
If you stick around long enough you’ll realize that the Free Press peeps see some things through an unbiased lens-but never Trump-Forever it seems TDS is ingrained like the sun rises every morning.
I'd be laughing if this weren't so sad and so destructive of our legal system. Because some women are sexually assaulted by rich and famous men, we're now supposed to believe that every crackpot claim is true? Even better if it can be used to destroy a former President whom the vast majority of New Yorkers despise. Carroll couldn't even remember the date Trump supposedly assaulted her. About as reliable as crazy Blasey Ford. But remember when every Democrat senator hung on her every word as if she were Moses delivering the tablets?
Remember , too, when half of America had the completely innocent Duke lacrosse players as rapists? Or Smollett as an assault victim (looking at you, Joey). If not for DNA evidence and a fortunate ATM photo, Crystal Mangum and her sleazy handler Nifong would have likely gotten a conviction. All as a result of the Greek chorus of "public opinion." Was there any evidence to corroborate that Trump and Carroll were even at Bergdorf's together? To corroborate the date of the supposed assault? No. Trump was convicted because he commented that rich and powerful men can do what they want with women? Ask the wives of athletes and actors about the groupies that target their husbands and boyfriends. This is not a one-way street. The "evidence" in this case seems laughable. The "law professor," Bazelon, who said Carroll's evidence was "exceptionally strong" was equally laughable but only in a scary way; such have the standards of that calling fallen. Because just as when you practice political medicine, you're practicing politics not medicine, the same is true of the law. We have dumbed down the law to the point that we might as well just dispense with trials and just have the juries vote in a bizarre version of Survivor. God help us when the legal and medical professions have become nothing more than high priests of political lunacy.
You stated a half truth that, we know is not a full truth: "Carroll couldn't even remember the date Trump supposedly assaulted her" -- you omitted that she couldn't remember the month or year either!
This is about the best sum up. Our society is in real trouble. Our institutions, legal, medical, journalism, etc. the same. I practiced law for over 50 years and the law was almost a secular religion to me and my family and now I am discussed with it and lost the faith. Worse, I am in Illinois and formerly Chicago.
I share your grief. Evidence, facts, truth used to matter. We used to think that equal protection and due process mattered. We used to believe that even the most heinous of defendants were entitled to representation by counsel. I am constantly reminded of the dialogue between More and Roper in "A Man for All Seasons." And when the Devil turns on you, what will be left to protect you?
As a hiring partner at a mid-sized law firm, I carefully note the schools at which these "law professors" such as Bazelon "teach" and cross their graduates off the list of being a potential hire. I may make an exception if the grad was an officer in the school's Federalist Society (assuming one was allowed to exist). Call it my "mini-Bud LIght" boycott.
Sorry if I copy catted you. Late to the game this morning, despite photons over the horizon before six. Making coffee and catching up. Will look for your comment.
Proof positive: Nick Cannon, father of multitudes with many different women! How many of those women knew who he was, and how many really cared about preventing pregnancy? Who are the real predators? Both men AND women!!!
Whatever the truth of Trump's interaction (or lack thereof) with Carroll, this seems like a very, very dark day for our legal system. Bazelon, given pride of place near the top, says Carroll had an "exceptionally strong case." Huh? How can a plaintiff have an exceptionally strong case without anything more than an unevidenced accusation and a defendant liberals detest? How can the jury legitimately conclude Trump to be guilty of some specific allegation based on nothing more than the defendant's insistence that the allegation is true? And how can the jury conclude with any force of justice that Trump defamed Carroll when he speculated as to her motives? If defamation is truly a concern here, how is it not *Trump* who has been far more seriously defamed, since an unprovable accusation of rape is far worse than an unprovable insinuation of lying to juice book sales?
There's no way to look at this objectively and fail to see a garishly politicized and unjust verdict. And yet The Free Press has managed to compile the opinion of only one person who even partially sees it that way.
What's going on here? Why is Goldberg's hackneyed and biased strategic frame even included, much less placed first? Why is Bazelon's biased framing treated as serious analysis? Why is the writer who spends her entire word count projecting her own experience with assault onto this case being treated as if she has anything relevant to say? Why is The Free Press, in including that response, suddenly treating 'believe all women' as an intellectually or morally serious proposition, which of course it is not? Why include the response of the last writer, who spends her whole word count womansplaining (as if the vast, vast majority of men don't already know that biological urges don't justify sexual coercion)? Why did Bari, according to her own account, introduce the absurdly gender-biased framing of "why it matters... for any woman faced with the daunting prospect of bringing a powerful man to account"?
Bingo. Do better, Bari. Don’t make me regret ponying up that subscription money, because there’s a lot of good content on Substack, but I only have so much to spend and must choose wisely.
This is not an even handed approach. It starts with the basic assumption that women don't lie and manipulate to get what they want (money, power, fame etc). All humans do, including women. A plausible explanation of the motives could well be that Carroll saw an opportunity for something she wanted and used the current power structure to move in that direction. Who knows. Maybe Trump was a pushy bore and grabbed her but didn't rape her. Once again, who knows. What I do know is that if you assume white as the driven snow motives on one side, it's a Mickey Mouse thought process and goes in the trash.
"I am sure the only reason Carroll pursued her case against Trump is because she was absolutely certain other women had experienced the same abuse at his hands."
Seriously? A woman who wrote a book titled, "What Do We Need Men For?" and won five million dollars in the judgement didn't have ANY other reasons?
Trump admitted his own history of sexual assault with the "grab them by the pussy" line years ago. This trial seems nothing more than the left preaching to our own choir.
he said grab em by the pussy. not I grabbed them by the pussy."I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."[1 it was a general statement. if he was referring to himself only he would say. I dont even wait.. I am a star. they let me do it..I can do anything.. grab em by the pussy.. language matters
Uhhh, language absolutely matters and nothing about the full phrasing makes it any less of an admission. "I don't even wait" and you're telling me that it was a general statement? Yeah, a general statement of his behavior and history of sexual assault. He's referring to his star quality in general, because he thinks of himself as part of the broader collective of "stars", and what the star power affords him in the ability to do with women. He doesn't think that he's admitting to anything, he's bragging that because he's famous, he can do whatever he wants, which is not actually how the law works.
An evolutionary biologist? Huh? I don’t love Trump, but many things about the case seem trumped up. They changed the statute of limitations - its 30yrs old? There has to be a little bit of skepticism when the alleged victim cannot remember the year, doesn’t report it and has no witnesses only hearsay. I don’t know what happened between the two of them 30yrs ago, but I do believe that you don’t get a pay day for bringing it up 30yrs later. I do wonder WHY she would go into a dressing room with him to begin with. This seems like a piece in the never ending Get Trump playbook. It seems you can’t and shouldn’t “believe all women” all of the time.
That was my question: why would she go into a dressing room with him if he was looking for a purse? If he was forcing her to go there, why didn't she scream? Evidently she recognized him as Donald Trump--who has been famous/infamous for a lot longer than three decades as a rich playboy--so why go into a dressing room with him if she wasn't interested in a brush with fame? What did she THINK would happen in the dressing room?
I'm sick of Trump. I wish he would just go away. But I also have very little sympathy for women who encourage a man's advances and then complain that he went further than she wanted. That is 180 degrees from how I was brought up.
Couldn’t agree more, Celia. A dressing room in Bergdorf’s? For chrissakes.
When Trump made his infamous comment about grabbing women by....he was speaking hypothetically about the type of women who seek out rich men and throw themselves at them, including wanting themselves to be grabbed by the... Oh, we know they exist.
Was a woman who would go to a dressing room with a famous, rich man, a total stranger, one of them?
If they were looking for a purse, those are almost always on the first floor which would have been crowded with salewomen and shoppers. And , even New Yorkers gawk at someone famous like Trump if he was on the first floor looking at purses, - and where exactly is the dressing room in the purse department.
I agree I don't get how they would end up in the dressing room together. I cannot for the life of me understand how this could've happened in the Bergdorf dressing room at all. It's a department store. The dressing rooms were sex segregated without the gender confusion psy-op today. A man couldn't just walk in. And there had to be other women in there or going in and out. There's no real privacy between stalls. Other people could hear everything. Unless maybe they were in the men's dressing room, in which case I suppose it could be much more likely to be empty. But then what would she be doing in the men's dressing room? None of this makes any sense.
The change in the statute of limitations was ex post facto, so the verdict will be thrown out. Everyone knows this, making the whole case a DNC hit job.
The statute of limitations for sex crimes was mainly changed due to the number of kids abused by priests who are now adults and coming forward. It wasn't specifically changed to go after Trump or really any other politician--that's just a side effect.
Ms. Read admitted last night in all her glee at victory that she helped with the change of statute of limitations legislation. She acted like she was instrumental but that’s debatable.
I’m sorry, why was she in a dressing room with a strange man she just met? Isn’t that a signal she is “up for the adventure”? I mean the only reason I would go to a private room with a man I just met is if I wanted to have a sexual experience with them. And, no, it’s not blaming the victim. There is no other plausible reason to do it. So why doesn’t anyone allow a premise that she consented to all this and then turned this around against him? What makes this version impossible? I’m just trying to be fair here. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in our legal system.
I'm sure she knew who he was. Donald Trump was famous/infamous as a rich playboy for decades before this incident. If he forced her into the dressing room, why didn't she scream? If she went willingly, she absolutely knew that there was going to be a sexual encounter.
I mean it sounds like he definitely had a reputation at that point. So if she recognized him, I’ll never believe she didn’t know what she was doing going into a dressing room with him.
She was in her 40s at the time. A woman of that age does not go into a dressing room with a man (much less a famous playboy) unless she is either A) a spy making a hand-off, or B) planning on engaging in sexual behavior.
It was a NYC jury. A jury of Democrats who have been trained to believe that women should have no responsibilities, only privileges.
According to feminist philosophy, a woman can willingly and intentionally bring a man to the very brink of orgasm, but if she says "no" at that point (with no change of behavior on his part), it automatically becomes rape. And in practice, young women have come to believe that if they have any regrets the next morning, that also makes consensual sex a rape by the man.
Right or wrong, movie on NETFLIX to come soon about the brave fight of this women. Yet you and the main street press ignore the Democratic issues on women abuse, like the Biden aide. She's a wack job and never happened. This is not law, this is simply politics and NY voters are the sheep used to get verdicts as the Democrats want. Remember the Me Too Movement? Yet it ignored the claims of women against the woke liberals. This is garbage that someone who doesn't remember the date or day when something happened 30 years ago. Really? Sorry I just find it hard to believe as I think a women would absolutely remember that kind of abuse. The Democratic playbook now consists of our policies suck, so get a women to claim the judge, politician, actor, or whoever we hate did something 30 years ago. This is a sad, sad commentary on society.
I make no defense of Trump, Biden, Gore, and all of the other men who think they are superior and can use women like a new tie. Respect for humankind is just so lacking. Yet 30 year old claims I find hard to believe no matter what the case is. So, can I sue LBJ's estate over a fake war for re-election and get paid for two years in the made-up war. Where does this stop?
Apparently the truth offends a lot of people. What Trump said in that tape was that if you’re famous women would let you do certain things. Was it crude? Certainly. But if you think it’s not true you are hopelessly naive. You should see how groupies behave with rock stars.
I've never understood the fuss about that comment. It's crude, yes, but it is also true. The women who throw themselves at famous men absolutely know what they are doing. The idea that women are inherently innocent victims is a lot like the Left's theory that non-white people are inherently victims: it takes us back to a time when only men were considered capable of agency.
Anyone who has ever been inside Bergdorfs would know that it would be next to impossible for this to occur in their dressing rooms. This is not a large department store where you could walk around unnoticed. This is a boutique style store where there were likely more sales help than customers. Yes, I’ve been there! This was the 90’s. Trump was very well known! Even he isn’t so delusional that he’d think he wasn’t noticed!
I've never been inside Bergdorfs (never been to NYC), but I have been in similar stores to what you describe. So it seems unlikely that this woman could have been *forced* into a dressing room without the staff being aware that she did not want to go there. And yet, no lawsuit against the store for their personnel "allowing" her to be raped?
Good point! You would also think that someone else had to have seen both of them together in the store…and that either an ex-employee or another customer would come forward.
I want to be very clear with my comment. As a husband of 41 years, the father of two beautiful daughters, and grandfather to three little girls, all of whom I adore and would give my life for, I put rape and sexual assault right up there with a capital crime, such as murder. In some ways, it is worse because the victim has to live with the consequences forever. It is inexcusable and deserving of judicial punishment commensurate with the abominable nature of the crime. Having laid that groundwork, I am very troubled by what I see as a corruption of our legal system for the purpose of targeting an individual who we wish to destroy by any means necessary. lt is inarguable that the democratic party and the left will do literally anything to destroy Trump's chances at another term and preserve their hold on political power in the US. I believe that anyone who doubts that is naive, in denial, or simply part of that ideology. I am no Trumper. I intensely dislike the man and his bombastic, boorish personality. I detest the smarmy condescension and better-then-thou attitude of Obama, Clinton, and Biden more.. not to mention the latter's clear intellectual incapacity. I suffer from the same handicap that nearly everyone who reads this does. I was not in the courtroom, have not read the trial transcripts, and I certainly wasn't in that changing room thirty years ago. Do you wonder, like I do, how both came to be in that changing room, as Ms. Carroll alleges and Trump denies? I cannot crawl into the mind of Trump or Ms. Carroll any more than you can. I do not trust a single word written by the legacy media these days. All of it drips partisanship and bias, without even a passing attempt at objectivity. Like all he said/she said trials with no physical evidence, we will be left to wonder and our opinion on the matter will likely be the same after the verdict as it was before. Of all the commentaries above, Dershowitz's carries the most weight with me because he is looking beyond the damage done to two individuals at the damage done to our judicial system. Like the indisputaby politically motivated indictment of Trump by Bragg, this is the most worrisome to me. R. Bosshardt, MD, FACS
One of the most measured, sensible comments today. I wish it had garnered more likes because it needed to be said.
It has it’s gone to the top of the page. It’s on 177 likes so far and I am sure by the end of today it will be over 200. It’s the best post so far on TFP.
It’s on 347 now
Now it is at 842
Wow the Doc definitely had a message for us probably go to a 1000 maybe he should have his own podcast or substack!!
Thank you, sir.
Your superb comment highlights the overarching critical issue. It is not what happened in the unknowable encounter in Bergdorf Goodman decades ago. Not even the NY jury's decision, as salient as that may appear to some. It is this endless attempt to destroy the only human with power to stand up to the left's destruction of America and all it has meant to the world.
I had not been a Trump fan until I started to see what he was doing for America when he became president. He was incredibly effective at making America safe secure, and prosperous, and the left would have none of it.
I grew up in Beverly Hills and came to understand some of Hollywood's ways. Trump spoke the truth about celebrities and "Hollywood" women. The "casting couch" was not a one-way proposition. Selling sex for movie roles, fame or fortune is nothing new, and Trump dared to speak "street" truth about such things. He is clearly his own worst enemy, but he is a loyal friend of America.
The critical story is the left's, virtually total control of America's institutions and their willingness to end America. Therefore they must end Trump and they know it. This is what we are watching.
Dr. we need you to get together with other doctors to speak out against this transgender craze. I know the trans mob will come after you, but millions will support you.
My like is #422! That’s the most ever as far as I can remember, and we’ll deserved!
Yes I do wonder how the two of them got in a dressing room alone with no one seeing them - and this at Bergdorf Goodman - one of NYC's fanciest stores.
I didn't have the money to buy anything there but I did walk around a lot and there were saleswomen all in black everywhere. The minute you walked in someone came up to "help" you and on every floor there were at least two or three saleswomen present. This store caters to the rich ladies of Park Avenue and they expect saleswomen to act ;ike personal shoppers and be within eyesight all the time ready to help. It definitely wasn't Macy's.
. . This "assault" happened during the time I was in NY so the atomsphere I am describing is what I experienced. T then his brings up the question I have had from the beginning. As I understand it Trump came in looking for a present for Marla and ran into Ms. Carroll on her way out. He asked for her help ignoring the saleswenman I expect were nearby. Trump was very well known in NY at the time and pretty much catered to so I assume saleswoman swarmed him wanting to help -
Somehow Carroll and Trump walked through the store and up the stairs with Ms. Carroll acting as a BG saleswoman and she ended up with Trump in a dressing room Trump was and is a big man with orange hair -the type rarely found in the lingerie dept where I believe this all happened. -But they were never noticed and Ms Carroll didn't scream. It is all very odd.
I think your analysis is dead on. Sounds like Trump could have used you at his trial instead of the high-powered attorneys who undoubtely charged him six figures to represent him! Best, Rick
There was a murder trial in Canada some years back that ended with a conviction. The accused's lawyer was one of Canada's most famous criminal defence lawyers, now deceased. His legal fee was said to have been two million dollars. In the watering holes around the Courthouse the joke by up and coming young lawyers was, "Gee, I could have got him convicted for 500 thou, ...a million, tops."
Great "Top" comment, Doctor.
That's "salesPERSON" missy. LOL maybe sex in the dressing room was common at BG's like the "mile high " club. so salesladies ignored two people who looked like they were together. and exited looking just like they did when they went in. E. Jean authored a highly sexual q/a column ( for the times) 30 years ago. but I agree something smells and it is not Chanel #5
Dorthy, you ask the questions that I hope Trump's lawyers questioned Ms. Carroll on. I don't know how she could credibly answer these questions because yes, it is all very odd and quite frankly, doesn't seem to add up.
Because she’s lying. But that’s only the opinion of someone who knows no more than any of the rest of those writing here
Yes, who could possibly believe that the man who openly bragged about grabbing women by the p***y actually grabbed someone by the p***y.
/s
That comment clearly reflected the behavior of women who throw themselves and their p*ssies at men with money. Spare us the pearl-clutching, it’s a tale as old as time.
Found the misogynist, everyone!
I agree with you. This is the kind of thing stupid high school boys say around each other because they are all afraid to someone will discover that they have never actually held hands with or kissed a girl. Testosterone fueled braggadocio. True or not, hat a supposedly mature, successful, married man said this is another whole story. It was truly weird, the morning after the election night in 2016. I woke up and turned the TV on. Remember, I cannot stand Trump for his personality, self-aggrandizing, and boorish behavior. Even so, when I heard he won, I felt this huge sense of relief, the first such feeling of optimism I'd had in months. All I could do was say a prayer of thanks that it wasn't Hillary. I still can't stand the man, but I liked what he accomplished in his four years. Go figure. All our heros have feet of clay............
Nearly always, someone who claims to have done anything like that wouldn't actually dare. It's almost an admission that he never did anything like it.
A few years ago there was a passing scandal—not saying this sarcastically—where it was discovered that hundreds of rape kits likely containing DNA had never been processed. These could easily have been run through a database, identified and convicted rapists with physical evidence. So you have a he/said she/said trial after 27 years with no physical evidence and get millions of dollars (It was Bergdorfs after all). Or you get violently attacked by perhaps a serial rapist and no one bothers to investigate.
That happened in Central Texas too. The Austin PD lab was years behind. In an area with two major universities and several.smaller ones.
You don't think that Trump would have been recognized by the salespeople at Bergdorf's and left alone? Wealthy, famous people are not treated the same as everyday people like you and me.
Let's stop blaming the victim.
So you think a high-end retail establishment condoned rape in its premises? That would have meant an additional deep pocket.
Condoned? I don't believe anyone has indicated they even knew?
why didnt they call the saleswomen on the clock that day? Hmmmm maybe because E Jean didnt know which day it was or month. or season of the year.. but she did call her friends and tell them. none of them remember? was Trump "famous" then? that was 30 years ago.. I never heard of him then. so you think every saleswoman at BG's would recognize him? just because he was rich? many wealthy people shopped at BG;'s. why did the saleswomen let a man in the dressing room? did he burst in like a Viking on a mission? did he sneak in like a ninja? how did it happen? did they stroll in together. ? or giggling like partners doing something risky? did E Jean say it was ok. he is my friend? what exactly happened. no one will ever know.. a classic case of he said she said
Martha my comment later did not make sense. I thought I was in a different thread. Sorry. As for condoning, how could a rape occur in a public department store and not be known. I have never been there but according to the comments of others it was a pretty popular place that was well-staffed. Certainly people were in earshot. To my knowledge there was no testimony that he threatened her. If she did not resist or object would that not mean she consented?
Lynne, it's ok. I sometimes lose track of which thread I am on as well!
I think that many of us have sort of an old-fashioned notion of what rape actually looks like. I think that many us imagine what we'd do in this situation, but until it happens to you, it's hard to really say what you would do. Many rape victims actually describe a complete inability to fight back - during an assault, your mind will actually move into preservation mode. It's the same reaction that causes someone being attacked to curl up in a fetal position. NPR recently had an interview that delves into it:
PFEIFFER: You know, this idea of crying out for help seems to be the opposite reaction than the body does in that moment.
TUERKHEIMER: That's right. Experts know that there are so many reasons why victims may not fight their socialization, which, particularly for girls, may lead someone not to fight. There's the kind of habit that many people develop, particularly if they are the victims of childhood sexual abuse, that may lead them to what seems like passivity. There's the freezing mechanism, the sort of immobility that neuroscientists understand is a common response to assault. And then there's self-preservation, which is that sometimes it can feel safer and it can be safer not to fight back."
I've been in the lingerie department of a large store (in fact, just a couple of weeks ago, in a Macy's) and been completely alone. It's not hard for me to imagine that nobody was around, or that perhaps sales staff did hear something but assumed it was consensual. Remember, the prosecution called almost a dozen witnesses, including former employees of Bergdorf who said: "She testified that on Thursday evenings during the 1990s, the sixth floor of the luxury department store wasn’t very busy, that an attendant wasn’t always present in the lingerie department and that the dressing rooms were sometimes unlocked."
No. Do you condone the politicization of medicine?
I'm not even sure what that means. It's not about politics. It's about understanding that medicine has traditionally used white men as the template; and all others as deviant.
Do you dispute that black men and women were used for medical experimentation?
I think you have pretty much admitted it probably didn't happen. You just want it to have, which is a stain on you for hoping that a woman was really raped when she really wasn't.
LOL they want the rich persons money. Salespeople would be on him like flies to honey.
Was thinking all the same thing- and Ms Carroll chose to go into the dressing room w Mr Trump to help him decide on a handbag or a hat? Hmmm Did they know each other before this exchange? Did she work for Trump at the time? Did she feel a job or career was on the line if she didn't say YES to Trump- answers to all these questions would provide more context for me. Maybe I have to buy her book- lol
What about the 20 other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault? Were they all lying?
Grifters gotta grift.
You said everything I’m thinking, only so much more eloquently. Yes, Trump is a boor whom I personally dislike. But legislative action focused on his political persecution is far more troubling than anything he may or may not have done 30 years ago, in a “locked dressing room”--which I too wonder about, since I can’t imagine its necessity for purchasing a bag or a hat as a gift.
And yes, Dershowitz’s is the sole rational, objective voice in this bowl of crap soup. Goldberg only states what’s obvious--at least to those of the same political persuasion--but apparently thinks a large vocabulary is a substitute for original insight. The biology professor spinning Trump’s offhand reference to “a million years” into some bizarre evolutionary theory pretty much epitomizes what’s wrong with academia these days. And Gutierrez’s statement that 30 years ago, women were expected to simply put up with this behavior is bizarre. There were rape and assault laws then, and yes, it could be difficult to pursue them with powerful men--say, for example, ones with last names like Biden or Clinton.
You are eloquent.
Why, thank you! :-)
Another 10 out of 10 post from
Richard T. Bosshardt, MD
Bravo
Not sure I agree on one aspect of your comments: I suspect Democrats are not too troubled by all this -- they want Trump to run (they should) because he would be the most disgusting opponent possible for their guy in the nursing home.
What a contest 2024 may be -- a guy in a nursing home against a guy in prison!
A Kauffman, This is a win/win for the dems. Either they prevent Trump from running or they add to their pile of ammunition and dirt to throw at him in a general election. Don't think they won't pull out every negative in Trump's background and we will hear more about "pussy grabbing" and sexual assualt than anyone should have to be subjected to. They will be relentless. Unfortunately, as pointed out in the article, it was Trump's own mouth and inability to control his tongue that got him into this in the first place. If he had just shut up.... no defamation trial. James 34-5. Rick
Even Trump’s supporters don’t like him. They vote for him for a different reason, not based on integrity or morality. They vote for him because he is a gladiator, tirelessly pushing back against the progressive agenda, protecting their constitutional rights, willing to take the blows along the way. This trial was a witch hunt, just as Trump claims. The facts are not beyond a reasonable doubt, the venue was partisan, the allegations absurdly out of date. She claimed she was raped but apparently that little detail was not credible. So “only” sexually assaulted? Did she lie about the rape part, falling back on the assault charge as a default?
I didn’t vote for Trump the first time because of his character and demeanor. But I couldn’t vote for Hillary either because of her elitism, corruption and progressive agenda. The relentless daily media outrage over the tiniest things, many fabricated (looking at you Adam Schiff and Russia collusion) destroyed 4 years when America could have made much more headway against lots of issues. Sickening political garbage.
I think you are 100% correct! All elections are about a choice, even if both are bad. The Dem's think anyone who has or will vote for DJT is evil or at a minimum, not very bright. I think they are totally wrong about that.
I suspect 60-80+% of American's think Washington is broken and has been far too long. Electing Hillary or Biden was more of the same and DJT was not. It is that simple!
It does seem strange that the jury dismissed her charge of rape—basically deeming her a liar—but believed her charge of sexual assault, relying on her word alone.
I suspect the jury’s thinking was that, based even on Trump’s own words from that Access Hollywood tape, he’s capable of such actions so why not convict him in this case on that.
I’m no Trump fan, but he tends to be his own worst enemy, making it easy for opponents to use—and abuse—the law against him.
Dershowitz was right I think - it was a compromise verdict. And he did not directly refute her testimony by testifying himself.
I like him.
Please do vote for him this time around if that's the choice...
I agree with you but the Reps missed and continue to miss a chance in accusing the ever senile Joe of pedophilia. Just look at the videos and quote his daughter's diary where she says she took showers with Joe. That makes my skin crawl.
I find most politicians disgusting regardless of stripe. I have said many times, we do not elect the best or the brightest.
They are all compromised beyond measure. The Republicans' hands are tied because they're being blackmailed the same as everyone else.
"They are all compromised beyond measure"
I would edit that to say "most" are compromised but your point is well taken. Trump openly mocked the republican weenies residing in that crowd. It made him many enemies, McConnell, Romney, Cheney... come to mind but more importantly it endeared him to the "deplorables" crowd who gravitated to someone bold and brash enough to say very loudly what was so obvious to them. It wouldn't be too bold to predict this conviction will be overturned.
Whether it is or not, his supporters will see it as another example of a two-tiered legal system where Trump gets charged while former Biden staffer Tara Reade’s charges of rape against him are ignored.
True point, Missy. The ghost of J edgar Hoover looms large.
I would exempt Rand Paul from that.
The best and the brightest do not go into politics.
You got that right. I think most, not all, are egotistical sociopaths and not too bright sociopaths.
Narcissistic sociopaths?
I thought the Dems loved sexual predators. They knew bill Clinton was a sexual predator before the ran for president but did the "Feminist Party" reject him? No, they didn't instead they called his victims bimbos and did their sycophants in the press.
When in his presidency women we coming forward complaining about him the Dem party defended him. By their own standards they should be glorifying and supporting Trump.
Speaking of double standards: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/10/19/joe-biden-and-the-disappearing-elephant-how-to-make-a-full-sized-scandal-vanish-in-front-of-an-audience-of-millions/
The Democrats' support of Bill Clinton has given them ZERO credibility when it comes to #MeToo. Even the feminists made it very clear at the time that power was far more important than any individual woman who had been sexually abused by Bill Clinton.
I’m afraid you are absolutely correct. He gives them ammunition because he can’t control himself. It’s chaotic.
Possibly a guy in prison v. a guy on his way to prison
Lets just put bars on the windows of the White House-- problem solved!
For a while, there were enough former governors of Illinois in prison that it was a frequent joke that any candidate for governor should simply be tossed in jail upon election.
Great comment. I had to do more than "like" it.
I also thought Alan Dershowitz had the best take - really the only one worth reading.
I also detest the smarmy condescension and better-then-thou attitude of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden more than I dislike anything about Trump. I voted for Obama once and against him the second time. His policies/actions were terrible.
I do really hope for a President DeSantis and I think many Dems are pulling for Trump to be the R nominee.
Why do we not see more articles about the clear intellectual incapacity of our current President? Why do we not see some stories about the $10 million laundered money Biden took from countries like China?
"@ByronDonalds
The Biden Family doesn’t have a business.
There is no business structure around this family except POLITICS.
This is Pulitzer Prize stuff. Unfortunately, the media is in the back pocket of the Biden Crime Family."
To quote Justice Robert Jackson:
"If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself."
Why did you feel the need to trot out your bona fides before getting to your point? Are you afraid someone would accuse you of being a misogynist? You write like a timid person. Speak your piece. Or don't. But don't try to prove up what a decent person you are as though that buttresses your opinion. Your opinion rests on its own merits, or not. But not on your decency. Don't worry, cancel culture isn't coming for you, sir.
P.S. Why do you post with an MD after your name? This Substack is not your waiting room and we do not care about your occupation.
RBM- Wow! Thank you for that. I hope that you feel better after venting that to someone you don't know even know. I post my MD because that gives me a different perspective then someone without that background. I am 70 and nearing retirement so the last thing I am trying to do is promote myself or my practice. As to your comment on cancel culture, you are dead wrong. I was cancelled for life from access to my fellow surgeons by the American College of Surgeons because I dared to call out the leadership for installing critical ract theory into the ACS. Timid? Don't make me laugh. Misogynist? Stop! You're killing me. LOL.
What I liked and appreciated the most about your post is establishing your credentials as a husband, father and grandfather to women, as am I. You and I are hyper sensitized to the societal threats aimed at women. Not to the degree of a woman I'm sure but as much as a man can be.
Thank you and yes, I am very sensitive to threats to the women in my life. Hurt one of them and you will have to deal with me. Full stop.
Dont worry - Running Burning Man and a few of the bros on this site have a nasty habit of personal attacks. I've been on the receiving end myself.
I think it comes from insecurity- it often happens when they feel intellectually challenged by a post. Somehow it threatens their manhood when things are not put forward in black and white and have some level of nuance and context. They bear a grudge against any depth of thought.
I appreciated your take on this. Women need to be protected and believed. Yet there are also political machinations at play here. Ultimately, Trump is a liability. His grotesquely sexist views are not aligned with modern day rights for women. His boorish and Neanderthall way of talking is not up to scratch for a woeld leader. And more's the pity. His actual 4 years were some of the best America's seen and largely due to his advisors and whom he chose to listen to behibn closed doors.
Yet Republicans shoot themselves in the foot when they pick such a questionable character to represent them. What a sad waste and a tragedy to have someone with so much potential to improve the country have such terrible flaws. Harvey Weinstein too, was a major talent. But that's not enough to excuse his abhorrent behavior either.
"Ultimately, Trump is a liability. His grotesquely sexist views are not aligned with modern day rights for women. His boorish and Neanderthall way of talking is not up to scratch for a woeld leader. And more's the pity. His actual 4 years were some of the best America's seen and largely due to his advisors and whom he chose to listen to behibn closed doors."
I agree with your first three sentences. I'm scratching my head over the last two. From all we've now heard, it was only a handful of people who managed to limit somewhat the extraordinary damage he did to our nation and our democracy. It's taken Biden three years to start to dig us out of this mess.
Oh yeah!?! There, I got the last word! I win!
Nah, you deserved that N&c. Each and every time.
Haha! Knew you couldn t resist a response. Petty bickering being your strength and all.
Last word much?
"I was cancelled for life from access to my fellow surgeons by the American College of Surgeons because I dared to call out the leadership for installing critical ract theory into the ACS."
Oh. Now I get it. I'm sorry but if medical professionals can't acknowledge the lengthy history of racism in medical practice then we have some bigger issues here.
Martha, there are, no doubt, issues with racism in the delivery of medical care, but bullying white people with the lunacy of "critical race theory" will not address these issues. In fact, it will make it worse.
@pacificus are white people so terribly fragile that we can't acknowledge the deep systemic racism that has, and continues to, plague medical practice? Just this past week, in 2023, did the recommendations for mammograms finally change to start at 40 years of age instead of 50. Why? Because the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology finally started looking at data sets that include black women.
When someone points out my own racist language and assumptions, I don't consider it "bullying," I consider it trying to educate me.
Martha, "fragility" has nothing to do with it, though I do note that you have adopted the vocabulary of CRT, and internalized the idea that you are yourself a racist. I'm guessing that's not true, even if it is true that we are, one hopes, always striving to grow and evolve when it comes to better race relations.
Long story short: the false and hateful assumptions at the core of CRT, despite the claims of its proponents, are not the only way
to address racial issues. Thats where I'm coming from.
Fragility is simply the left wing equivalent of the right wing’s snowflake. It’s a poor attempt to silence people who have a valid point because you aren’t capable or can’t be bothered with refuting said point.
Martha, do you have any idea what you are talking about? It's hardly about acknowledging past racism. I suggest you review the philosophical origins of DEI and critical consciousness. You will soon learn that critical race theory is essentially race-based Marxism. Opposition to it has zero to do with what you seemingly naively state it does.
George, yes, I do know what I am talking about. Do you? Because CRT has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. (For that matter, do you understand Marxism? Have you read Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto? )
CRT has been around for over 40 years and is simply a framework that starts with the idea that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. That's it. The right-wing has made it into some weird dog-whistle bogeyman without taking the time to understand what it is and why it's useful.
When you say CRT has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism, it betrays a level of ignorance that makes it seem pointless to try to explain it to you, but I will try.
We think that Marx was talking about economics because he talked about economics a lot (Das Kapital). We know Marx' hypothesis (seize the means of production to bring socialism to the world). But if we think he means it's about capital (factories, hammers, sickles), we miss what he means. Marx was a theologian more than an economist.
Marx' idea was that there is a special form of property that segregates society into the people who have (the bourgeoisie) and people that do not have (the proletariat) who are in class conflict, with an ideology that keeps it in place (capitalism). The underclass must awaken with consciousness to fight back and seize the means of production of that form of deterministic property.
Change out class with race, and CRT falls right out of the hat.
In 1993 Cheryl Harris wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review called Whiteness as Property. She explained that whiteness, or white privilege, constitutes a kind of cultural private property, and said that it must be abolished in order to have racial justice, just like Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that Communism can be defined in a single sentence....the abolition of private property. This is why CRT calls to abolish whiteness, because whiteness is a form of private property. People who have access to this property are whites, or "white adjacent" or they "act white" (the bourgeoisie). People without are "people of color" (proletariat) and are oppressed by systemic racism. Systemic racism is enforced by an ideology of white supremacy (instead of capitalism).
If you think of whiteness as a form of cultural capital, white supremacy as they define it is identical to capitalism. It's not believing white people are superior. It's believing white people have access to the control of society and should maintain that. Even if you don't actually believe that...if you merely support that you have adopted the ideology of white supremacy in your mind. It is the exact same system of thought as economic Marxism. The goal is to awaken a racial consciousness in people so that they will band together as a class and seize the means of cultural production so that white cultural production is no longer the dominant mode.
It is not about history at all, it is not about slavery at all...those are excuses they use. It is about creating a class consciousness that is against the form of property called whiteness...that is against this dominant culture. It is a means for people to come together to channel resentment and try to claim power. Lindsey defines CRT as calling everything you want to control racist until you control it. Can you not say the same thing about Marxism? Calling everything you want to control bourgeoisie until you control it?
This is the exact same way of thinking about the world. The goal is always to seize the means of control of the production of man and history and society. Marx merely believed it was through economic means....now it is through socio-cultural means. CRT is merely a species of the genus Marxism. Marxism failed in capitalistic societies because Marx was wrong, but the virus evolved. The Frankfurt School evolved these ideas further into critical Marxism with Max Horkheimer developing the critical theory, saying that it is not possible to articulate the vision of a good society on the terms of the existing society. So critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the existing society. Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to Marxist conflict analysis.
Marcuse said the working class is no longer going to be the base of the revolution because of the success of capitalism. The energy is somewhere else...in the racial and sexual minorities, the feminists, the outsiders...those are who have the energy for a Marxist revolution in the west, not the working class.
I hope that helps you understand what actually is going on. Does this sound like a weird dog-whistle bogeyman to you?
Pssst. Martha....you talk too much.
No one denies the history of racism. My objection is to blame everything on racism and seeking to bring down society and all institutions as irredemably racist. Don't forget slavery but remember the Emancipation Proclamation drafted by a bunch of dead white guys, not to mention 300,000 dead, most of them white, to free slaves. The problem with continuing to stress historical racism is that it is historical. You cannot change that. We can do better moving forward and have, until the new radical CRT advocates charged America with systemic racism. Remember Jim Crow but don't forget the Civil Rights movement. You need to educate yourself on critical race theory. I recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, then read Ibram Kendi's book. Aren't we getting away from the topic of this thread?
I've read a couple of Kendi's books - are you sure you have?
Who is blaming "everything" on racism? As I said above, CRT is a framework through which to examine assumptions- that's it. If you think racism is "historical" and doesn't exist in the modern era (a statement which is demonstrably untrue) then what exactly do you mean by "we can do better?" Either there is a problem or there isn't - which is it?
But yes, we've strayed from the original topic, which was your comment that Trump couldn't possibly be guilty of actually doing the very thing he was recorded bragging about doing; because somehow the "liberals plotted to use the justice system against him." The mental gymnastics that conservatives jump through to avoid simply accepting that Trump is a manipulative piece of garbage would be amusing, were it not doing real damage to our country.
Martha, I will not engage you further after this reply. I said nothing regarding Trump's guilt or lack thereof. You made that up. Go back and read what I said, without the lens of leftist outrage or Trump derangement. Peace.
I suspect you are correct that Trump is something like a "manipulative piece of garbage". BUT, he was and is better able to deal with America's problems than Joe Biden.
My strong preference is that neither is the 2024 nominee!
so. now mamos are at 40. why end them at 74? is that racist too? what we can appreciate is that lives will be saved. what we can appreciate is that not everything js racist..sometimes it just has been proven to aid humanity..and save tlives..should men get mamos? they also get breast cancer.. is that racist that they dont get them. or just stats?
"I post my MD because that gives me a different perspective then someone without that background."
We've all got "different perspectives" doc. Your work as an MD does not offer you any greater insight into the problems of society. Indeed, you admission that the American College of Surgeons has now black balled you because of your political views is an admission by you that docs have no special insights about political matters. I'd have thought you'd have the insight to understand that.
Gee, Running Burning Man, I think your argument just redefined “desperation” for me. Because the Star Chamber enforced political orthodoxy over medical competence, then the accused must be just like them because, after all, they are all doctors. Guess you couldn’t challenge the message, so you shot the messenger.
You utterly missed my point. Doc Bosshardt claimed that his being an MD gave him special insight over the behavior in matters of others without an MD. But then he admitted that a host of docs found his political views intolerable and tossed himont of the society. So, no, docs have no special wisdom on non-medical things. The point - rather obviously - is that docs have no special insight to things outside the profession.
Didn't think that was so hard to get. But apparently I was wrong.
When you deal with the content, I may wish to engage. But when you only chose to shoot the messenger, I am wasting my time. Over and out.
then why do we have laws in CA where a doc can lose their ability to practice if they give out negative info on "the virus" is that not political?
I am.betting his opposition to installation of DIE practices and theory at ACS is that it is politicization of medical practice. is that something you support?
You might have missed my point. I agree that ACS and many other medical societies, journals, med schools, etc., have adopted the "systemic racism is all around us" narrative. That proves my point that medical doctors walk on very thin ice when opining outside their professional expertise. Thus my original comment that neither MD nor his throat clearing, virtue signaling opening added nothing to his perspective and why I objected to his preface.
I do not see your comment as
making that point. I was surprised at your comment having seen others you posted here. While I disagree with your criticism of the good doctor's preface to his comment, it is your opinion and you are entitled thereto. My point went to his comment about his statements to his professional group and criticism therefor. As a member of his group I think he should be lauded for pushing back against the politicization of his profession. Frankly I wish there were more would. I certainly do not think he is forbidden from opining on here though. This is a public forum.and if he is willing to do so under his real name more power to him.
RBM, Are you obnoxious on purpose or can't you help yourself? I do have insight into when I am being trolled. TTFN...............
Not trolling, as you might know from my other comments here. Sorry if pointing out your ego as a doc - a common shortcoming of physicians - struck a nerve. You might have learned from the experience. Alas, not.
Imo this one doesn't come off as trotting out bona fides. He's clarifying that he is not commenting from a biased POV. The usual preambles like this in posts and comments are done when the commenter defends the opposite side to which he or she is not aligned. He's not doing that. He's explaining how someone from his position sees this.
Thank you, you saved me a lot of writing and you said it much more eloquently than I would have. The only thing that I would add is that more and more I see these continual allegations against Trump as witch hunts not specifically against Trump but as attacks against a political outsider whole dares to push back against the political ruling class. This is what concerns me the most. I would expect any threat to the existing political duopoly to receive the same amount of personal attacks and unfortunately I am becoming less and less likely to give credence to accusers.
Right out of Hitler’s playbook. Everything Hitler did was blessed by the courts, and any law could be changed if necessary. Sound familiar?
Perhaps the Democrats aren’t as stupid as they appear, and want to see Trump as the martyred 2024 presidential candidate, rather than a more likeable and eloquent Reagan-like contender whom one could vote for without holding one’s nose.
So grateful to you sir, for the intelligence and pure decency of your response. It is clear that many others are also appreciative. This was no “win for women.” It was a grave loss for our country and the rule of law.
All of the most anti-Trump writers essentially wrote "He's convicted because we hate him". It's as if even they don't believe that he is literally guilty.
They don't seem to notice or care.
Very well said. What I don't understand is, this is a she said, he said case. Without witnesses to verify what she claimed, how can you convict?
I could say I was assaulted by Nancy Pelosi in a phone booth in San Francisco. Will I get $5 million dollars and a lot of counseling because it was a horrify, disgusting experience? Just thinking about it makes me shudder.
As a side note, I wouldn't put past that arrogant megalomaniac to have assaulted her.
He was neither convicted nor found guilty because this was a civil case
He was found liable for damages. The burden of proof in a civil case is by a preponderance of the evidence. It is the lowest burden in our system.of justice and just means the jury has to believe it more likely than not happened.
"As a side note, I wouldn't put past that arrogant megalomaniac to have assaulted her."
AKA "There's no evidence but I wouldn't put it past him." Classic.
Excellently written. Thanks for expressing my sentiments so well.
I posted this separately, but it is so far down, no one will see it, so I repeat it here as a comment.
Around 1970, I was assaulted while serving in the US Air Force. Happened during working hours. After deliberating all night, I reported it the next morning. The Air Force OSI, investigated by interviewing many other women, civilian and military whom this man had had contact with. They found many previously unreported incidents with other women. We were all witnesses at his court-martial. The whole thing was scary for a young woman: the deposition with this man present, the actual court-martial....I was only woman in the room during the proceeding. I do not understand why women do not report assaults at the time they happen. I think reporting is part of the moving on process. BTW, I believed Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford. If they were lying, they are great actors. A full Colonel traveled to my parents home to thank them for what I had done.
Thank you for your courage to report. As a young woman, perhaps at a lower rank, you took a great risk and your timely reporting stopped that person and sent a strong message to other abusers.
When it comes to celebrities like Amber Heard, Hill, or Blasey Ford that becomes so distorted in the press that it is beyond my abilities to decide.
I admire your bravery and resiience. Thank you for your service. Rick (formerly a Commander, US Navy, Medical Corps)
Thank you Rick, I went to dental school on the GI bill after my 4 years in the Air Force. I certainly enjoy reading your thoughtful comments here.
Thank you for your service. You have my sympathy for what happened to you and my admiration for speaking up about it. There is no telling how many women you saved from a similar fate.
I can’t say whether Trump was guilty of this infraction or not, but you, who have daughters and granddaughters you love, have you not noticed the generally denigrating way DJT talks about women? And that doesn’t come across as smarmy, and better-than-thou to you? I grieve I have no one to vote for, but please, is voting for someone who has no problem denigrating women verbally really acceptable to you?
No, but neither is voting for someone I consider a traitor to this country who used his drug addled son as a bag man and has lined his pockets with Chinese money. There is a great deal more evidence for that than for Trump's unwitnessed assault in a changing room at Berdorf Goodman thirty years ago.
Chinese money, Ukrainian money, Russian money, Romanian money, Costa Rican money.
It’s hard to think of this as anything but lawfare, part of a DNC-coordinated campaign of legal and financial harassment designed to punish Trump for being president and prevent him from running again. After Christine Blasey Ford, it’s hard to believe any woman with a decades-old “he said, she said” allegation.
Billionaire Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman funded the lawsuit. New York changed its laws last year to provide a one year window to go beyond the statute of limitations. All of this stinks to high heaven, but the narrative must be set. No coincidence this happens right as the House oversight committee discovers Biden family taking millions from foreign governments. Will The Free Press cover what was on Hunter's laptop or Tara Reade's accusations against Joe? How would MSM react if Donald Trump Jr fathered a child who he refuses to acknowledge and is trying to reduce child support payments for? Navy Biden - say her name! https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/say-her-name-navy-biden
I thought our Constitution prohibited ex post facto laws. Or maybe it doesn't apply in the People's Republic of New York.
Not "ex post facto" in the least. If it happened 30 years ago, it was wrong then. And actionable at the time. All that changed is the statute of limitations for filling a claim was extended. Yes, it actually was resurrected, but that is not ex post facto.
Disagree RBM. It is one thing retroactively to amend a statute of limitations to apply to a sex crime against a child, who didn't have the capacity to bring a complaint. Not so with a 52 year old woman. Moreover, if the change really was directed to "get Trump," it would also be a constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.
No, no. Wrong. Think again. It is not a question of capacity or anything like that. The act was unlawful when done. It still is wrong. But the time to file expired. The filing period was resurrected by the legislature; it did not create a wrong that was not a wrong at the time.
And children CAN bring claims despite being minors. That is what guardians or "next friends" do in the name of the child. The reason kids didn't sue is because they rarely told anyone about the abuse - a priest, uncle, next door neighbor would intimidate with power, position, or words such that the minor would remain silent.
And it is not a "bill of attainder" either. Those are things that the legislature does to impose liability on a specific person without a trial or due process. No such bill was passed in NY. Trump had a trial. And he is not deprived of property - other than the damages of this case. He can still own property, bequeath its, etc., which bills of attainder would have prohibited.
P.S. Don;t practice law without a license.
I do have law license. Do you?
The legislature cannot revive a clam that's been extinguished which is what the statute of limitations in effect did when it ran on Carroll. "Consequently, to resurrect a prosecution after the relevant statute of limitations has expired is to eliminate a currently existing conclusive presumption forbidding prosecution, and thereby to permit conviction on a quantum of evidence where that quantum, at the time the new law is enacted, would have been legally insufficient. And, in that sense, the new law would “violate” previous evidence-related legal rules by authorizing the courts to “ ‘receiv[e] evidence ... which the courts of justice would not [previously have] admit[ted]’ ” as sufficient proof of a crime,
Stogner v California, 539 US 607, 616.(2003).
You also err on a bill of attainder. If the change in the law was enacted to facilitate an action against Trump it is a classic bill of attainder. "Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life, liberty, or property of particular named persons, because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. United States v Lovett, 328 US 303, 317 (1946).
A civil statute. Not criminal. And yet left wing states are outlawing the ability for children being genitally mutilated to ever file a civil lawsuit against the providers doing so. There is no non-political reason to do that. It’s not logical to make docs immune from one of the most consequential and still experimental medical interventions being performed on children with healthy bodies. It’s political and ideological.
Providing this one year window was entirely political. Moreover, a NY jury would convict Trump in a civil court if there was an unsolved murder within a mile of where he lived when he was 2 years old.
This stuff is all so silly. And pointless. It’s just more “get Trump” nonsense meant to enrage his base. There is plenty to go after Trump for - he’s the one who originally called for a national shut down. But lefties won’t go after that because that wouldn’t enrage Trump’s base to support, it might make them actually change their minds and support a more electable candidate who wasn’t so stupid with Covid. They also can’t do it because Biden and Newsome are more authoritarian than most people would have considered possible in the country as recently as 2019.
And THIS! Yuri, you nailed it- It's like a badly officiated basketball game where fouls are constantly called on only one team yet never on the other team. A foul is a foul and should be called on EVERYONE COMMITTING THEM-
a little equity and inclusion here-right?? 😉
Would Monica Lewinsky have a case?
I think the BJs were DC affairs so no NY jurisdiction ... Sadly.
It was consensual.
Only consensual in the sense that she agreed to participate. She was a White House intern. That means that Bill Clinton was both her boss and her teacher. Add in the fact that he was two decades her senior, and you have three very good reasons why he had an ETHICAL (not merely moral) obligation to reject any advances she might have made toward him.
I am old enough to remember when Gary Hart had to drop out of the Democratic primaries because he was spotted on a yacht with a woman who was not his wife. Democrats' acceptance of Bill Clinton's behavior changed everything. A man like Trump had no chance of receiving the nomination back in 1988. Even John Edwards had to drop out of the primaries not because he was cheating on his wife, but because he was cheating on her while she had cancer.
Oh Celia you will never catch me making a claim that a Clinton is moral or ethical. While there are many issues with getting BJs, even consensual ones, in the Oval Office it was not a sexual crime
Paula Jones, Would that work Lynne?
I wondered about her but do not remember the details. I vaguely recall an that an Arkansas state trooper on his security detail corroborated her account though. I am not a Clintonite.
Along with others who have commented - it is not that those of us who voted for Trump excuse the behavior, it is the double standard. The evidence against Biden and his son is a mile long and the crimes are serious, treasonous serious. Nothing is done. This sends decent people with critical thinking skills back to policy as our primary determinant in which candidate to support. Honestly, we don’t know if Trump did these things or not - or Biden for that matter, but I do appreciate Trump’s policies more. What is a person to do? My hope is that a conservative candidate without the social baggage will win the Republican nomination...I have one in mind 😊
No other conservative candidate will win. Trump won because he is not like the other GOP contenders - he fights. DeSantis is not the conservative he may seem to be; he is playing a role to become the preferred Trump alternative.
Well, Tara Reade should get a lawyer?
Excellent point. That illustrates exactly what this is. A DNC witch hunt for political reasons and political reasons only.
No....she should hire an attorney herself, like Carroll did.
Thought Reade did have an attorney for awhile. What happened?
what do you think happened? called ROM. run out (of) money.. and carefully squelched. get on over to Racket and read about the organizations running this country. bravo to brave men and women like Schellenberger, Tiabbi and Fang ( and on occasion Bari) who dare to expose the truth. we are being manipulated and conned every single day. this is just one more con job
What do I think happened. Well, as was reported at the time, they actually bailed because they could not corroborate her story of being raped in the hallway of the Russell Building during work hours.
& we need our conservative billionaires to foot the bill
I believe one cannot sue a sitting president.
So Biden is biding his time in office, needs another four years in which he'll probably die in office, to run out the clock.
That is the plan Stan.. and so far on track..
Pretty sure that's not true, as Paula Jones was allowed to sue Clinton.
This has to be the most "likes" you've ever received Comprof. I like the turn around. Worried it won't last though.
Actually, it's not. Not that I really care. The ones in the past from Nellie were unexpected though.
Apparently, people don't get sarcasm and are not aware that Reade had legal representation re: Biden, but they bailed. So, most of the "likes" are probably based on ignorance.
Worried what won't last? Joining the MAGA echo chamber?
"bailed'? is that what they call it now when pressure is put upon you from certain levels?
No. That usually happens when your legal representation cannot find corroboration for your claim that you were raped in the hallway of the Senate Russell Building during the workday.
What were the "certain levels" you are referring to?
Funny how these critically important details were never mentioned in any of these four essays or the intro.
Hmm.
So true. Great comment
True, though Nellie mentioned Navy in her last TGIF.
True, Joe, “mentioned Navy” How about a FULL report on Hunter & the Big Guy?
Will never happen on this blog.
Not Navy we don’t need distractions
Thanks for flagging. Balanced coverage would necessitate a full article. Democracy dies in the darkness!
Thank you!!!
I also notice the Free Press overlooks real corruption evidence being presented against Biden. This publication gets far too silly far too often, while ignoring actual stories with actual evidence of events that both actually occurred, and occurred after my elementary school days. The Racket and Public and countless others are more than superficial nonsense. They are worth the fee.
Just imagine if Ivanka's diary has spoken of her father showering with her. Or if Donald, Jr.'s e-mail had spoken about Russian payments and reserving 10% for "the Big Guy." Or if Eric Trump had lied on a federal firearms application...........
Only the view point that was worth reading was Mr Dershowitz. The rest crap!
Agree. He's lost so much socially to take the side of law...not the side of Trump, but too many perceive that's what he's doing. I don't love him (OJ was definitely guilty), but I do love that he stands with the law. The judge in this case was totally biased.
Yes, FP's willing blindness to the perfidy of the Left is routinely extremely disappointing, but, hey, Bari was liberal enough to work for the NYT (for a time). A good example is that nowhere in her article about the "unanimous verdict" is there a mention that they found AGAINST her on the rape charge (you have to read down to Dershowitz's response to find that out). So, they found her not to be telling the truth about the most serious charge (since this case lacked any corroborating evidence). At least we found the limits of a New Yorker's hatred for Trump - they won't call him a rapist on this flimsy evidence. Oh, by the way, he wasn't "convicted" of anything. This was a civil case, where the burden of proof is a "mere preponderance," not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Plus unless the jury charge specified the defamatory statement specifically, how could he defame her if he was denying a rape occurred?
Between the ever fluffy stories we’ve been subjected to as of late and the strong left bias, I’m beginning to wonder why I subscribe to the “Free Press.” I’m not sure how much more of this I can take.
I’ve turned off subscriptions before. I tried again. I turned off my renewal this morning. I’m not sure anyone dislikes Trump more than Matt Taibbi, but it doesn’t stop him/ The Racket from reporting truthfully on important topics. Same with The Public. People have turned away from legacy media because it’s silly stories, biased coverage, factually wrong, and pure propaganda. I’m increasingly not able to differentiate legacy media nonsense from The Free Press anymore. It’s the same thing - ignoring big stories, promoting silly ones, coverage that is nothing more than biased coverage of left wing talking points.
I also subscribe to the Racket and The Public. They are leagues above the Free Press in the quality of the reporting. There is simply no comparison. I only read the Free Press when I want to read something that doesn’t require much thinking. It’s perfect for that! But you are right—the Free Press is increasingly as irrelevant as the legacy media.
I’ve been hanging on by a thread for a long time with my subscription. This article just might be the last straw.
come for the Enquirer. stay for the comments
The two are not mutually exclusive. It can be lawfare, and a decades-old "he said, she said" allegation can be true, without all such allegations being true.
I am certain that you have never been raped, from your comment, and that you trivialize something about which you know nothing.
I was date raped at 15, a very innocent virginity stolen from me, in an era when the term date rape did not exist. I had trouble making sense of what had happened, that someone I knew could intentionally use force to rape me. I knew there was no point in telling anyone, that there were no witnesses, that I would be the one to be humiliated and suffer.
It changed my entire life. It changed my ability to trust. It changed my ability to experience arousal. I got therapy decades later, but your dismissal of being raped personally disgusts me, Mark. I can not express this strongly enough.
I've been sexually assaulted and yet I still see this as a blatantly politicized sham trial and an abuse of our justice system. I think trials like this hurt real victims most, just like Jussie Smollet style fake hate crimes damage the credibility of real victims of hate crimes.
Just because someone is skeptical of this outlandish 27 year-old story doesn't mean they are dismissing the trauma of rape. Women should be encouraged to report such incidents promptly to get rapists off the streets rather than sitting on claims for decades. And Tara Reade's sexual assault claim against Biden, who she worked with, is more credible than Ms. Carroll's claim against a man she didn't know.
You have my sympathy for what you endured. The problem with this Carroll thing is it serves no one well. Women who lie about being raped trivialize rape and minimize actual victims thereof. I do not know whst happened between them. But I am.here to tell you that there is no way to mount a defense 30 years later. Particularly with no day, month or year specified.
So, not one comment defending Trump? C'mon, give me a break. A mixed and perplexing verdict and not one word saying maybe they got it wrong?? I don't honestly know what happened in this case but I don't read The Free Press to get legacy media bile vomited all over me.
Great point. And Tara Reade, the lady who accused Biden, is a big liar according to the MSM.
I was thinking the same thing; plus, the legacy of Clinton rape victims. The phony feminists win again.
Also Epstein's pals, and never forget that every feminist and liberal in California knew exactly what Harvey was doing, and they kept their silence for decades.
They're not good people.
Yes, and Hillary Clinton, the greatest feminist of all time, went to great lengths to discredit the women who accused her husband. She didn't have to become their best friend but she should not have vilified them the extent that she did.
Now zKsthy from Boston that is wrong. I heard her say with my own ears that she was no Tammy Wynette standing by her man! Complete with a faux southern accent. 😉
The MSN doesn't recognize that Tara Reade exists - almost like Biden's granddaughter Navy.
Maybe Reade will get a lawyer?
Waste of money. The limitation period expired long ago. Most of those who tell the story aren’t smart enough to show Reade as she was at the time of the alleged assault. She was not overweight and she was very pretty.
If Republicans were as good at messaging as Democrats they would blame Tara Reade’s significant weight gain on Biden’s sexual assault.
Well, she said Biden raped her in the hallway of the Russell Building during work hours. Believe she did have some attorneys at one point. Not sure what happened with that.
Completely ignored by everyone is the simple fact that there isn’t any evidence of anything.
Freedom rests on simple foundations that have proven over the centuries to be immovable and irreplaceable. One of those foundations is that there must be proof of guilt.
Liberals are deliberately destroying our cities, our borders, and our freedoms, one after the other, and celebrating their destruction.
Han
Carroll’s testimony is evidence. It is not credible, but it is evidence. Corroboration is not required. You are a nuisance.
Of course it’s not credible. And it always required corroboration in the past. If this precedent stands, anybody can be accused of anything at anytime in the past and be forced to pay simply by placing the invented event in a specific court.
If testimony was "evidence", Murdoch wouldn't be in prison right now for killing his son and wife. What a foolish statement!
Murdaugh was convicted because he originally said he was not at the scene, and, surprise, video on his son"s phone placed him.there minutes before the shooting.
Testimony IS NOT evidence.
Yes it is. The jury, or
the judge if there is no jury, is the sole judge of the credibility of the evidence. I do not believe corroboration is required. Certainly not in a civil matter. Prosecutors are traditionally reluctant to bring g a criminal case on.just the alleged victim's testimony though.
Even if it is evidence, I thought to be convicted you had to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How can you not have reasonable doubt if the only evidence is the victims word?
To be convicted of a crime you must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused must also be present throughout the trial...This was a civil case though and the burden of proof was by a preponderance of the evidence. That is the easiest burden in our system and is just more likely than not. Obviously the jury found her credible.
She waits almost 30 years to make a formal accusation when the man enters politics! Yeah, that’s not suspicious at all! She and Blasey-Ford. Both mentally unstable women.
Well said. And it happens too often. I suppose TDS is lasting and blinding, even here at the FP.
Yip!
I kept reading (or rather skimming) hoping to find one on the other side. Dershowitz was the closet she’d go. Too bad she’s unwilling to be non partisan
That is exactly why I've unsubscribed to Free Press - my subscription cancels in November.
Mine to going to see it out to November.
I am considering the same, but I do enjoy the lively comment section debate, even if I sometimes vehemently disagree with the focus of the writer. We'll have to see over the upcoming months.
I assume the Free Press also feels the same urgency to immediately report on the House Oversight & Accountability Committee’s findings of nine Biden family members receiving over $10 million in payments from foreign nationals to their 20 different “companies” after their review of thousands of subpoenaed records and the Biden family’s attempts at concealing them. Should be hitting my inbox any minute now....
Yes, I read the transcripts from the 2nd memo about this yesterday. Lester Holt on NBC evening news ignored this story last night. Typical.
Paying Reader, Biden Crime family is rarely ever mentioned! And “IF” it is, it’s always followed by a “but, but, but Trump”
Where is fair & balanced ?
No, Bari will NOT cover this. Although she is no leftist, per se, she still has leftist leaning, an artifact from her years at the NYT!
Bari runs defense for the really serious stuff by ignoring it, and normalizes leftist extremism with mild criticisms and light hearted jokes so we can all get used to the new normal. Which is sexual assault as a political weapon, partisan enforcement of the law, mandatory participation in the DEI religion, etc etc.
"The press are not here to fix things, they are here to help us accept and normalize them"
Nope not hitting yours or mine any time soon, the FP is only interest in Donald Trump and then mostly the negative parts which are manufactured by the Deep State anyway.
This is a lot like a white jury convicting a black man in the Deep South at the height of Jim Crow of, well, ANYTHING, but certainly sexually assaulting a white woman. The charges are thirty years old, and it is her word against his. What nonsense. It's a political hit job funded by left wing activists, like Reid Hoffman, whose funding was not allowed to be mentioned in the court: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-cant-discuss-billionaire-funding-carroll-rape-lawsuit-judge-2023-4
When the Left cares about the VERY credible rape allegations made by Tara Reade against Joe Biden--she mentioned them immediately to her friends, and had been an enthusiastic Democrat and political supporter of Joe Biden, which is why he thought she was "into" him--then, hell, who are we kidding? When the Left cares about any principle whatsoever, then it will stop being the Left and become Liberal. That cannot be anticipated any time soon, and if they win, not in any of our lifetimes or those of our children, since we will all be living in a technologically airtight tyranny.
Barry, the Left DOESN’T CARE about rape allegations or sexual assaults!
Remember how the Left defended Bill Clinton’s behavior (in the Oval Office, no less!), and even Hillary “defamed his accusers”? And, Lewinsky had proof positive with his semen on her blue dress! But, “nothing to see here” and, “that’s private” and “if Hillary forgives him then who are we to judge”!
No proof positive against Trump, but “Orange Man Bad” Right?!?!
Yip 💯 on post!
I have not followed this much but I am curious who served on the jury. Their politics etc. I think that's a fair question . I assume that was a big part of your post
It was in New York. What else do you need to know? They also reached a guilty verdict on a thirty year old charge for which ZERO empirical evidence existed.
Excuse my subtlety. Thats exactly what I was seeking to ferret out. The inverse of the DC jury that found Sussman innocent. The odds of Trump getting an unbiased jury in NYC is nil. That was the point I was getting at. Again subtlely.
And I am by no means commenting on Trump or his character. I want a fair system of justice. Of the writers Bari chose only Prof D cares about fairness and consistency and the rule of law.
Weren't allowed to know that with the judges ruling, remember?
Not like it at all.
1. Was usually immediate, not 30 years later.
2. Black people were not allowed to testify in court.
Really sad you tried to make a moral equivalence with the two.
That was a bit of a reach even for you, wasn't it? Certainly willful obtuseness can be made a habit, but it must have taken considerable effort to power over the obvious claim I was making, which was that it would be nearly impossible to find a jury or judge in New York able or willing to give Trump a fair trial. Bias in courtrooms is injustice. Perhaps you can find yourself agreeing with that, since that is no doubt a belief you hold too, at least outwardly and when convenient?
But if you want go there, let's. You are right: 30 years is an absurd amount of time to pass before a case is brought which consists in entirely in unbacked allegations for which no hard evidence exists.
And how COULD Trump bring to bear a witness to something that didn't happen? How could any he or she say they saw him not touching her somewhere, or even remember where they were the day this didn't happen? Certainly, if you have prepared a legal hit job you can find people to support you, but in my analogy that is white people willing to support their own.
No, the analogy is solid. I stand by it. It was an unfair trial in a hostile courtroom, adjudicated by dishonest and hateful people.
Trump is no saint. He is a serial philanderer, certainly, and on his third wife. But he is no rapist, unlike Biden, or in all likelihood, his crack smoking creep of a son.
And Barry, let’s not forget Bill Clinton!
Trump's situation is analogous to extrajudicial lynchings of black men during Jim Crow.
But I'm the one stretching and being obtuse? Lol.
Ok. Barry. Great analogy. Nailed it.
Well, Barry, if Hunter Biden ever runs for POTUS, his substance abuse issues should be a consideration.
Biden is a rapist?
Your first sentence is a straw man. Barry analogized with a biased trial by whites during Jim Crow, not a lynching outside of a courtroom. But soldier on...
Comprof is a walking straw man. It's all he ever has.
Well, when you compare Trump's legal treatment to black people during Jim Crow, it's really all you need ;)
Lol. Not a stawman at all. Compared Trump's legal treatment to black people living under Jim Crow. It was very clear. Weird take, but par for the course around here. But soldier on, Jeff, cause it was a great take.
Whats extraordinary is that you can square patent nonsense with what I assume was a decent education and a reasonably high IQ.
The problem we face is not people who ARE stupid. The problem is with people who CHOOSE, over and over and over, to be stupid.
I used clear English. What you heard originated in your own need to defend the indefensible.
Bari, I see you still haven't figured out the meaning of "toady." Ask Joe Rogan, or better yet, Tulsi Gabbard. This article is anything but fair or balanced. It's undisguised toady-ism.
If I wanted to read Jonah Goldberg's mindless twaddle, I'd read Jonah Goldberg. I don't. Why was it necessary to inflict him on us here?
I came here to get away from the nonstop Trump Hate echo chamber. I came here for a respite from the noise. Yes, Trump is a rich self entitled asshat. Yes, New York State in their ever ending strategy to dig up every skeleton in Trump’s closet and “win” a political war so the headlines can read “we got him” race, essentially made it possible for a 30 year old disgusting act from a self indulged asshat to be turned into a real civil suit and be heard in our once renowned legal system. As if we all didn’t know the asshat we elected was an asshat. As if the NY Kangaroo show trial that just concluded was a “victory”.
I came here to get away from the echo chamber in the media…isn’t that the same reason you gave me this delicious place to come? Don’t ruin it by becoming everyone else. This Trump hating pile-on seems to be your tipping point. Find a better way to discuss this.
If you stick around long enough you’ll realize that the Free Press peeps see some things through an unbiased lens-but never Trump-Forever it seems TDS is ingrained like the sun rises every morning.
Thank you for summarizing my thoughts exactly!
You have an asshat addiction! What does this word actually mean?!
Well, since you asked, the dictionary (that’s a book used by people to look up word meanings) defines asshat:
https://www.google.com/search?q=asshat&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
I’m going to assume you have internet access.
Take a breath and learn to take a joke! No need for weirdly aggressive ad hominem attacks, jeez! Hope your day gets better, Danna!
Likewise. I thought it took a smartass to spot a smartass. My bad...
I'd be laughing if this weren't so sad and so destructive of our legal system. Because some women are sexually assaulted by rich and famous men, we're now supposed to believe that every crackpot claim is true? Even better if it can be used to destroy a former President whom the vast majority of New Yorkers despise. Carroll couldn't even remember the date Trump supposedly assaulted her. About as reliable as crazy Blasey Ford. But remember when every Democrat senator hung on her every word as if she were Moses delivering the tablets?
Remember , too, when half of America had the completely innocent Duke lacrosse players as rapists? Or Smollett as an assault victim (looking at you, Joey). If not for DNA evidence and a fortunate ATM photo, Crystal Mangum and her sleazy handler Nifong would have likely gotten a conviction. All as a result of the Greek chorus of "public opinion." Was there any evidence to corroborate that Trump and Carroll were even at Bergdorf's together? To corroborate the date of the supposed assault? No. Trump was convicted because he commented that rich and powerful men can do what they want with women? Ask the wives of athletes and actors about the groupies that target their husbands and boyfriends. This is not a one-way street. The "evidence" in this case seems laughable. The "law professor," Bazelon, who said Carroll's evidence was "exceptionally strong" was equally laughable but only in a scary way; such have the standards of that calling fallen. Because just as when you practice political medicine, you're practicing politics not medicine, the same is true of the law. We have dumbed down the law to the point that we might as well just dispense with trials and just have the juries vote in a bizarre version of Survivor. God help us when the legal and medical professions have become nothing more than high priests of political lunacy.
You stated a half truth that, we know is not a full truth: "Carroll couldn't even remember the date Trump supposedly assaulted her" -- you omitted that she couldn't remember the month or year either!
This is about the best sum up. Our society is in real trouble. Our institutions, legal, medical, journalism, etc. the same. I practiced law for over 50 years and the law was almost a secular religion to me and my family and now I am discussed with it and lost the faith. Worse, I am in Illinois and formerly Chicago.
I share your grief. Evidence, facts, truth used to matter. We used to think that equal protection and due process mattered. We used to believe that even the most heinous of defendants were entitled to representation by counsel. I am constantly reminded of the dialogue between More and Roper in "A Man for All Seasons." And when the Devil turns on you, what will be left to protect you?
Me too. Just me too not #metoo.
As a hiring partner at a mid-sized law firm, I carefully note the schools at which these "law professors" such as Bazelon "teach" and cross their graduates off the list of being a potential hire. I may make an exception if the grad was an officer in the school's Federalist Society (assuming one was allowed to exist). Call it my "mini-Bud LIght" boycott.
Woke people want everything to be determined by identity. Black woman accuses three white male lacrosse players of rape? They must totally be guilty.
Gay black man says that two white Trump supporters attacked him on a cold Chicago night yelling “this is MAGA county”? Totally happened.
Asian applicant to med school has high marks and is very competent to perform surgery? Sorry, too many Asians.
Wokeness will destroy America.
Well said.
All institutions that matter have been captured by the left.
The USA is toast.
Spot on. See my comment above.
Sorry if I copy catted you. Late to the game this morning, despite photons over the horizon before six. Making coffee and catching up. Will look for your comment.
No copy-catting. We’re on the same, incredulous page.
Absolutely correct!
Proof positive: Nick Cannon, father of multitudes with many different women! How many of those women knew who he was, and how many really cared about preventing pregnancy? Who are the real predators? Both men AND women!!!
Move on and appeal. At this point, the left has made a mockery out of the legal system. Better yet, time for Tara Reade to get her day in court.
Whatever the truth of Trump's interaction (or lack thereof) with Carroll, this seems like a very, very dark day for our legal system. Bazelon, given pride of place near the top, says Carroll had an "exceptionally strong case." Huh? How can a plaintiff have an exceptionally strong case without anything more than an unevidenced accusation and a defendant liberals detest? How can the jury legitimately conclude Trump to be guilty of some specific allegation based on nothing more than the defendant's insistence that the allegation is true? And how can the jury conclude with any force of justice that Trump defamed Carroll when he speculated as to her motives? If defamation is truly a concern here, how is it not *Trump* who has been far more seriously defamed, since an unprovable accusation of rape is far worse than an unprovable insinuation of lying to juice book sales?
There's no way to look at this objectively and fail to see a garishly politicized and unjust verdict. And yet The Free Press has managed to compile the opinion of only one person who even partially sees it that way.
What's going on here? Why is Goldberg's hackneyed and biased strategic frame even included, much less placed first? Why is Bazelon's biased framing treated as serious analysis? Why is the writer who spends her entire word count projecting her own experience with assault onto this case being treated as if she has anything relevant to say? Why is The Free Press, in including that response, suddenly treating 'believe all women' as an intellectually or morally serious proposition, which of course it is not? Why include the response of the last writer, who spends her whole word count womansplaining (as if the vast, vast majority of men don't already know that biological urges don't justify sexual coercion)? Why did Bari, according to her own account, introduce the absurdly gender-biased framing of "why it matters... for any woman faced with the daunting prospect of bringing a powerful man to account"?
I ask again: What the hell is going on here?
Bingo. Do better, Bari. Don’t make me regret ponying up that subscription money, because there’s a lot of good content on Substack, but I only have so much to spend and must choose wisely.
And WHY now?? Why wait 30 years? Why not in 2015, or 2016 when Trump was President? Yes, we all heard about it, but WHY no lawsuit before now?
I say DISTRACTION from the Biden Crime family, and of course, “Let’s get Orange Man Bad on something - anything”
God you right AP it was a croc of bullshit! I only read the Prof’s went to his first then scammed over the rest, I don’t know why I wasted my time.
This is not an even handed approach. It starts with the basic assumption that women don't lie and manipulate to get what they want (money, power, fame etc). All humans do, including women. A plausible explanation of the motives could well be that Carroll saw an opportunity for something she wanted and used the current power structure to move in that direction. Who knows. Maybe Trump was a pushy bore and grabbed her but didn't rape her. Once again, who knows. What I do know is that if you assume white as the driven snow motives on one side, it's a Mickey Mouse thought process and goes in the trash.
"I am sure the only reason Carroll pursued her case against Trump is because she was absolutely certain other women had experienced the same abuse at his hands."
Seriously? A woman who wrote a book titled, "What Do We Need Men For?" and won five million dollars in the judgement didn't have ANY other reasons?
Trump admitted his own history of sexual assault with the "grab them by the pussy" line years ago. This trial seems nothing more than the left preaching to our own choir.
he said grab em by the pussy. not I grabbed them by the pussy."I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."[1 it was a general statement. if he was referring to himself only he would say. I dont even wait.. I am a star. they let me do it..I can do anything.. grab em by the pussy.. language matters
Uhhh, language absolutely matters and nothing about the full phrasing makes it any less of an admission. "I don't even wait" and you're telling me that it was a general statement? Yeah, a general statement of his behavior and history of sexual assault. He's referring to his star quality in general, because he thinks of himself as part of the broader collective of "stars", and what the star power affords him in the ability to do with women. He doesn't think that he's admitting to anything, he's bragging that because he's famous, he can do whatever he wants, which is not actually how the law works.
An evolutionary biologist? Huh? I don’t love Trump, but many things about the case seem trumped up. They changed the statute of limitations - its 30yrs old? There has to be a little bit of skepticism when the alleged victim cannot remember the year, doesn’t report it and has no witnesses only hearsay. I don’t know what happened between the two of them 30yrs ago, but I do believe that you don’t get a pay day for bringing it up 30yrs later. I do wonder WHY she would go into a dressing room with him to begin with. This seems like a piece in the never ending Get Trump playbook. It seems you can’t and shouldn’t “believe all women” all of the time.
That was my question: why would she go into a dressing room with him if he was looking for a purse? If he was forcing her to go there, why didn't she scream? Evidently she recognized him as Donald Trump--who has been famous/infamous for a lot longer than three decades as a rich playboy--so why go into a dressing room with him if she wasn't interested in a brush with fame? What did she THINK would happen in the dressing room?
I'm sick of Trump. I wish he would just go away. But I also have very little sympathy for women who encourage a man's advances and then complain that he went further than she wanted. That is 180 degrees from how I was brought up.
Couldn’t agree more, Celia. A dressing room in Bergdorf’s? For chrissakes.
When Trump made his infamous comment about grabbing women by....he was speaking hypothetically about the type of women who seek out rich men and throw themselves at them, including wanting themselves to be grabbed by the... Oh, we know they exist.
Was a woman who would go to a dressing room with a famous, rich man, a total stranger, one of them?
She suggested he buys gloves as a gift. They went into a fitting room to see how the gloves fit.
You don't need a fitting room to see how gloves fit.
Of course. That was sarcasm. I guess we need a special mark to label sarcastic posts.
Was it an OJ reference? Or maybe a “shoe fitting” would have made it more obvious?
Right, because I always go into an enclosed place associated with undressing with men I just met to "try on gloves." Doesn't everyone?
Are you listening to yourself?
Exactly!!
If they were looking for a purse, those are almost always on the first floor which would have been crowded with salewomen and shoppers. And , even New Yorkers gawk at someone famous like Trump if he was on the first floor looking at purses, - and where exactly is the dressing room in the purse department.
I agree I don't get how they would end up in the dressing room together. I cannot for the life of me understand how this could've happened in the Bergdorf dressing room at all. It's a department store. The dressing rooms were sex segregated without the gender confusion psy-op today. A man couldn't just walk in. And there had to be other women in there or going in and out. There's no real privacy between stalls. Other people could hear everything. Unless maybe they were in the men's dressing room, in which case I suppose it could be much more likely to be empty. But then what would she be doing in the men's dressing room? None of this makes any sense.
A New York jury. Says it all.
"Trumped up," I see what you did there.
The change in the statute of limitations was ex post facto, so the verdict will be thrown out. Everyone knows this, making the whole case a DNC hit job.
Yeah but it’s ok to change the statute of limitations when you really really dislike the guy 🤷🏻♂️
The statute of limitations for sex crimes was mainly changed due to the number of kids abused by priests who are now adults and coming forward. It wasn't specifically changed to go after Trump or really any other politician--that's just a side effect.
Ms. Read admitted last night in all her glee at victory that she helped with the change of statute of limitations legislation. She acted like she was instrumental but that’s debatable.
My recollection is it was in response to the Cosby and Weinstein cases.
I’m sorry, why was she in a dressing room with a strange man she just met? Isn’t that a signal she is “up for the adventure”? I mean the only reason I would go to a private room with a man I just met is if I wanted to have a sexual experience with them. And, no, it’s not blaming the victim. There is no other plausible reason to do it. So why doesn’t anyone allow a premise that she consented to all this and then turned this around against him? What makes this version impossible? I’m just trying to be fair here. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in our legal system.
I'm sure she knew who he was. Donald Trump was famous/infamous as a rich playboy for decades before this incident. If he forced her into the dressing room, why didn't she scream? If she went willingly, she absolutely knew that there was going to be a sexual encounter.
She said upfront that she recognized and bantered with him. Bantering might have been interpreted as flirting.
I mean it sounds like he definitely had a reputation at that point. So if she recognized him, I’ll never believe she didn’t know what she was doing going into a dressing room with him.
She was in her 40s at the time. A woman of that age does not go into a dressing room with a man (much less a famous playboy) unless she is either A) a spy making a hand-off, or B) planning on engaging in sexual behavior.
She was in her fifties
100%. I can't believe the jury fell for this.
It was a NYC jury. A jury of Democrats who have been trained to believe that women should have no responsibilities, only privileges.
According to feminist philosophy, a woman can willingly and intentionally bring a man to the very brink of orgasm, but if she says "no" at that point (with no change of behavior on his part), it automatically becomes rape. And in practice, young women have come to believe that if they have any regrets the next morning, that also makes consensual sex a rape by the man.
There is a presumption of innoce.ce in a criminal.prosecution. This was civil.
Bari - you wrangling to get back into the NYT"s?
Right or wrong, movie on NETFLIX to come soon about the brave fight of this women. Yet you and the main street press ignore the Democratic issues on women abuse, like the Biden aide. She's a wack job and never happened. This is not law, this is simply politics and NY voters are the sheep used to get verdicts as the Democrats want. Remember the Me Too Movement? Yet it ignored the claims of women against the woke liberals. This is garbage that someone who doesn't remember the date or day when something happened 30 years ago. Really? Sorry I just find it hard to believe as I think a women would absolutely remember that kind of abuse. The Democratic playbook now consists of our policies suck, so get a women to claim the judge, politician, actor, or whoever we hate did something 30 years ago. This is a sad, sad commentary on society.
I make no defense of Trump, Biden, Gore, and all of the other men who think they are superior and can use women like a new tie. Respect for humankind is just so lacking. Yet 30 year old claims I find hard to believe no matter what the case is. So, can I sue LBJ's estate over a fake war for re-election and get paid for two years in the made-up war. Where does this stop?
You left out Clinton and JFK.
Apparently the truth offends a lot of people. What Trump said in that tape was that if you’re famous women would let you do certain things. Was it crude? Certainly. But if you think it’s not true you are hopelessly naive. You should see how groupies behave with rock stars.
I've never understood the fuss about that comment. It's crude, yes, but it is also true. The women who throw themselves at famous men absolutely know what they are doing. The idea that women are inherently innocent victims is a lot like the Left's theory that non-white people are inherently victims: it takes us back to a time when only men were considered capable of agency.
Anyone who has ever been inside Bergdorfs would know that it would be next to impossible for this to occur in their dressing rooms. This is not a large department store where you could walk around unnoticed. This is a boutique style store where there were likely more sales help than customers. Yes, I’ve been there! This was the 90’s. Trump was very well known! Even he isn’t so delusional that he’d think he wasn’t noticed!
I've never been inside Bergdorfs (never been to NYC), but I have been in similar stores to what you describe. So it seems unlikely that this woman could have been *forced* into a dressing room without the staff being aware that she did not want to go there. And yet, no lawsuit against the store for their personnel "allowing" her to be raped?
Good point! You would also think that someone else had to have seen both of them together in the store…and that either an ex-employee or another customer would come forward.