January 18, 2017

"Women are not a footnote to history.... We value women who allege they have been the victims of injustice."

"It takes a great deal of courage to sue the most powerful man on the planet."

133 comments:

Rocketeer said...

Gloria Allred: Values women who allege they have been the victims of injustice at a rate of, oh, probably $1500 per hour.

MayBee said...

Did someone drag a dollar bill through a trailer park?

Chuck said...

I won't get in the way of anyone's attacking Gloria Allred.

But let's remember -- just about a year ago (February, 2016) -- when Trump was suggesting that as President he'd "open up the libel laws":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-says-hell-open-up-libel-laws/?utm_term=.1ecac482e99a

Lewis Wetzel said...


However, Allred has said three witnesses — including Zervos' father — confirm she complained about Trump's advances at the time.

Hearsay.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Advances" are not a crime, and there is no damage.

Pussy grabbing, without consent, is a bad move, rude, obnoxious, deserving of a knee to the groin in response, and could be Battery. But here we have one breast grope, a few kisses and a pelvic thrust. Hmm. Sounds like what happened every day in the Mad Men world.

What are the damages? very, very, very small.

What is the likelihood of a full civil trial? very, very, very small.

What is the likelihood of further innoculation from Trump-claims, because they are so remote and mostly trivial? very, very high.

What is the likelihood that Juanita Broderick was raped by Bill Clinton, and ignored by the mainstream media? very, very high

Owen said...

Take a number, Gloria.

Chuck said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
However, Allred has said three witnesses — including Zervos' father — confirm she complained about Trump's advances at the time.
Hearsay.


Is that a "case within a case"?

When we are defending litigation attorneys in malpractice cases, there is a concept of "the case within a case." That is, it is necessary to not only prove that there was legal malpractice (a breach of the standard of practice) but also that the underlying case would have been successful, or with a better/more favorable outcome but for the malpractice.

Here, the plaintiff is not suing for sexual assault. I presume the statute has run, on that tort. She is suing for defamation.


mockturtle said...

As I commented yesterday in another context, one doesn't earn respect by playing the victim. Victims may elicit sympathy but never respect.

mccullough said...

Funny that Allred uses the word "allege."

Mike Sylwester said...

Assuming for the sake of argument that anybody ever said that women are "a footnote to history", how is that assertion contradicted by this nuisance lawsuit?

n.n said...

Is this or is this not the Twitter account of Summer Zervos?

Summer Zervos ‏@SummerZervos 15 Oct 2016

@MSNBC I need to come clean.I lied.I didn't hire Gloria Allred.Her people contacted me.I personally want to end this.IT WAS MADE UP sorry


This is starting to look like a baby hunt similar to Roe vs Wade that legalized human sacrifice and exploited a woman at a vulnerable moment for political progress, career advancement, and economic largess.

traditionalguy said...

He said-she said is an oldie but a goodie. I can't wait for the all networks and cable channels to carry this trial live. The guys from Davos will also transmit it world wide.Only Putin will provide a character witness for DJT, and maybe he will release some hacked Gloria Alredd e-mails through Assange.

Chuck said...

About the quote, "It takes courage to sue the most powerful man on earth."

No it doesn't. The most powerful man on earth is collectible. So that alone invites llitigation against him.

Courage would be needed, to sue the lowliest man on earth. Because the chances of collection are nil. And the courage of your convictions would be your only reward.

The quoted line has it exactly backwards.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

In addition, the longtime women's rights attorney said Tuesday that her client had passed a lie detector test regarding her allegations.

Of course she did. First of all, lie detectors are pseudo science. What little actual research that has been done has discredited them. But a huge industry has risen up around them and they are now implanted in the system. One hundred years from now its likely they will be regarded as phrenology is now.

But more to the point, the lie detector operator is going to want to get further work from Ms Allred. He is going to produce the result she wants. Which is a problem with all forensic evidence, even the stuff that isn't totally unscientific, the labs and technicians know what side of the bread the butter is on. Thus the current scandals of cooked tests in forensic labs both governmental and private.

CJ said...

Ugh. Now we have to read about 10 Slate/WaPo/Vox pieces (and boring journalists retweeting about them) that purport to explain "Why Trump doesn't want this suit to go to discovery".

Brando said...

But it didn't take much courage to sue Obama or Clinton, right?

And politics aside, why exactly does it take so much courage to sue the president? In some respects it's much less courageous than suing a private citizen, because if the president's lawyers do something unseemly (but legal) it'll be much more widely known and scrutinized.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@CJ

I'm not going to read them.

Luke Lea said...

Do Presidents have no temporary immunity for suits of this kind? I know the Supreme Court ruled the Paul Jones case should not interfere with President Clinton's ability to perform the duties of his office, but look how that turned out: 9/11 might never have happened if he could have given the possibility his full attention. Would love to hear Ann's legal opinion.

MackM said...

http://www.snopes.com/summer-zervos-paid-500000/

"CLAIM: Summer Zervos was paid $500,000 to fabricate her sexual harassment claim against Donald Trump.

UNPROVEN
ORIGIN:On 3 November 2016, the web site Got News published an article reporting that former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos had been paid $500,000 to accuse Donald Trump of sexual harassment."

Larry J said...

This reminds me of the story about a city transit bus that was involved in a minor traffic accident. The bus driver refused to open the bus doors until the police arrived on the scene. When asked why he was keeping the passengers inside, he replied, "I wasn't keeping the passengers inside. I was keeping additional 'victims' from getting on board."

mccullough said...

She never claimed he grabbed her by the pussy. So it's a win for Trump

The Drill SGT said...

Here, the plaintiff is not suing for sexual assault. I presume the statute has run, on that tort. She is suing for defamation.


So she is suing him for not admitting that he assaulted her in the first place, because the alleged assault was too long ago?

FIDO said...

Weren't we told that Paula Jones should NOT bring a suit against a President because it will invite all kinds of frivolous law suits and it was the mark of a low person to do such damage to the Presidency?

Were they wrong then or wrong now?

This 'bring him down anyway possible' is worse than anything Clinton, Bush or Obama ever faced. It is sawing through the pillars of civil society because one side got their Feelz hurt by losing an election they saw as their birthright.

This does not end well.

Snark said...

@n.n. No, of course that is not the real account of Summer Zervos. Jeez.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"It takes a great deal of courage to sue the most powerful man on the planet." - is she also suing Putin?

MackM said...

Trump might be a bit concerned if The Apprentice tapes are subpoenaed. I wonder if he lies under oath and it's proven to be a lie, will he be subject to impeachment. I'm thinking yes.

rhhardin said...

Without women the world would have no insensitive and lewd remarks.

MackM said...

"This 'bring him down anyway possible' is worse than anything Clinton, Bush or Obama ever faced. It is sawing through the pillars of civil society because one side got their Feelz hurt by losing an election they saw as their birthright."

Republicans set the precedent.

Michael K said...

When asked why he was keeping the passengers inside, he replied, "I wasn't keeping the passengers inside. I was keeping additional 'victims' from getting on board."

That is an old joke I first heard from my father. In Chicago, there were examples of more plaintiffs than seats on the bus, of course, but that is Chicago.

wendybar said...

So why does everyone think it's okay that Bill raped women?

campy said...

if he lies under oath and it's proven to be a lie, will he be subject to impeachment.

It's okay for a POTUS to lie about sex.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Depending on who the most powerful man on the planet happens to be at a given time, of course.

lemondog said...

instances when presidents have encountered litigation:

Matthew Sablan said...

"I wonder if he lies under oath and it's proven to be a lie, will he be subject to impeachment."

-- I'd think lying under oath to be a crime that should lead to impeachment, but I would be wrong according to the left under the Clinton precedent.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It's okay for a POTUS to lie about sex."

-- The consequences! They were unintended!

n.n said...

Snark:

Next lawsuit: Twitter?

There is also this character witness and e-mail, presumably authenticated, to be from Summer Zervos sent in April 2016:

Statement from John Barry

Someone is lying. It may not be Zervos. It may not be Trump.

rhhardin said...

Women are not a footnote in history, but they own most of the shoes.

Jay Elink said...

When asked why he was keeping the passengers inside, he replied, "I wasn't keeping the passengers inside. I was keeping additional 'victims' from getting on board."

That is an old joke I first heard from my father. In Chicago, there were examples of more plaintiffs than seats on the bus, of course, but that is Chicago

***************

It's more than "an old joke". IIRC "Sixty Minutes" showed a video where people actually DID get on a bus after it had a minor accident in some city. Maybe it was Chicago.

Owen said...

Chuck @ 12:13: " She is suing for defamation."

Echoing Drill SGT, I am trying to figure out the defamatory speech by DJT: by contesting her ALLEGATION that he had done these things? So, let me understand how this works: A sues B alleging B leered, pawed and otherwise offended A. B files an answer denying the allegation. A sues B for defamation, because the necessary inference from B's answer is that A is untruthful.

Nice work if you can get it.

This sure looks like pure stunt to me.

The Cracker Emcee said...

And yet she voted for the woman who's entire political career is predicated on being an enabler for a rapist.

pdug said...

good for her. Put up or shut up I say.

Bay Area Guy said...

It'd be nice if Gloria Allred could find a few female plaintiffs in the Muslim countries, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, where they still do honor killings of uppity women. You know the type, right? They have the gall to want to drive, or fall in love or date or dance or not wear a Burka....

Lyle Smith said...

Lawyers.

Chuck said...

So she is suing him for not admitting that he assaulted her in the first place, because the alleged assault was too long ago?


Interesting phrasing on your part. You have inadvertently stumbled onto the central problem/

No, she is not suing Trump for "not admitting" anything.

She is suing Trump for Trump's having affirmatively claimed that she fabricated evidence and/or falsely/knowingly impugning her.

Trump might well have avoided the possibility of this action if he had responded to the original sexual assault/harassment claims by saying, "I don't wish to dignify these meritless claims against me with any serious response." Trump didn't do that. He said that he had never met her, that she was lying, fabricating claims, etc., etc. I just finished reading the Complaint, btw.

So yeah, this is a case of Trump's aggressive counter-punching leading to litigation where none would probably have laid.

Chuck said...

Althouse! Have you read the Complaint? I'm troubled by it, although the fact that it is Gloria Allred makes it less of a big deal. She's a total show-pony.

My issue is the chatty way it has been drafted. I'm now used to "plain English" pleading; it is an admirable development in the law. But I don't think that pleadings should b drafted like Op-Ed columns.

Meade said...

Gloria A: Women are a footnote to history?

Bill C: It depends upon what the meaning of the words "women" and "are" are.

MackM said...

I knew Trump's "hitting back twice as hard" would eventually bite him in the ass. He gets on Twitter and makes a mountain out of a molehill because he's a drama queen and his "hitting back" response served him well in the past. He's the President now, he'll be under the microscope, which serves him right. Being President might not be as fun as he thought.

EDH said...

Owen, there's a "litigation privilege" shielding court pleadings.

Out of court statements do not enjoy such privilege even in the context of underlying litigation.

Hence, Allred using the phrase "women who allege" when speaking to the press.

Big Mike said...

Allred is the woman's lawyer? I already don't believe her!

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Interesting how essentially NONE of this came forward before about July, 2016.

Hagar said...

There is some cognitive dissonance between suing for defamation of character and hiring Gloria Allred to be your lawyer.

damikesc said...

This might well be legit...but she has chosen the worst possible lawyer to demonstrate that.

And politics aside, why exactly does it take so much courage to sue the president? In some respects it's much less courageous than suing a private citizen, because if the president's lawyers do something unseemly (but legal) it'll be much more widely known and scrutinized.

It's not remotely "courageous". It was as "brave" as Colbert being an asshole to Bush during the WH Correspondence Dinner, when Bush couldn't really say anything back without looking like a dick.

I wonder if he lies under oath and it's proven to be a lie, will he be subject to impeachment. I'm thinking yes.

It'd be a "lie about sex". Dems have already said that it is not an impeachable offense.

Snark said...

@n.n. While it completely possible she and other women might fabricate these claims for personal gain in my observation what is often likely in these situations is that the behaviour happened but there is a shift on the part of the complainant in how the actions are perceived. The actions are initially tolerated, or a source of confusion, maybe even seen as flattering, or as an indication of some kind of special relationship. Then, something changes. Trump won't come to your restaurant or you begin to perceive that he's just generally lecherous, and the incidents begin to shift in your head and you feel wronged. And maybe you were.

Static Ping said...

I voted for Trump despite significant misgivings. If you told me this was going to happen, it would not have changed my vote at all. Hillary was such a terrible option that it would take a lot more than this to change my mind.

Does she have a case? *shrug* The timing does appear to be very suspicious.

David said...

Go live in Russia and sue Putin. Or sue the Muslim leaders of Iran in their courts. Then I will listen to blather about courage.

n.n said...

Snark:

That's possible. I would think that type of misunderstanding would be less likely as we mature, but maybe not. It would explain the initial (i.e. shock) but not necessarily a persistent response. Is the latter due to the complainant or lawyer?

So, what of the Twitter account? Are the identity and image fabricated?

The messages in the account match the tone and disposition in the e-mail sent shortly before the fall election and as described by the character witness.

Brando said...

"It's not remotely "courageous". It was as "brave" as Colbert being an asshole to Bush during the WH Correspondence Dinner, when Bush couldn't really say anything back without looking like a dick."

Society has defined "courage" down, and now the expression "speaking truth to power" is usually a laugh line rather than anything to take seriously.

This will be the tip of the iceberg--Trump has been involved in a lot of lawsuits over the years, and he seems to invite them. Maybe Pence will be running the country while Trump deals with this stuff, which would be fine by me.

James Kahn said...

The timing is solely to maximize the chance of a settlement, knowing that Trump doesn't want to be distracted by even a totally meritless suit.

Michael K said...

"This sure looks like pure stunt to me."

Allred is pure stunt central. She dragged out the illegal housekeeper of Meg Whitman who had used a false SS ID to get the job and was let go after they found she was illegal.

After the election, she disappeared.

This time Allred must see more hay to be made and maybe some money from Democrats who want to harass Trump.

Snark said...

@n.n. I'm not really meaning to describe a misunderstanding but a sense of being wronged, or a willingness to pursue that sense, that evolves over time because of different factors. And sure, those factors might include a courting and a whipping up by a Gloria Allred type. That Twitter account is fairly obviously somebody having a lark, which is extremely common on Twitter. Or do you really think she's inviting people to meet her at Dunkin' Donuts on Friday? That hundreds of people directly retweeted the various 'retractions' is kind of funny, in a death of critical thinking kind of way.

William Chadwick said...

I'm sure the watchdogs of the MSM will diligently look into these charges, just as they did with Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, et al.

MadisonMan said...

The timing is solely to maximize the chance of a settlement, knowing that Trump doesn't want to be distracted by even a totally meritless suit.

It seems to me that the Office of the President could easily cite pressing National Issues and be granted extension after extension in this case.

(IANAL -- obviously ;) )

I Callahan said...

This will be the tip of the iceberg--Trump has been involved in a lot of lawsuits over the years, and he seems to invite them. Maybe Pence will be running the country while Trump deals with this stuff, which would be fine by me.

Pure conjecture. These are those types of veiled statements that look like they're saying something, but can be attributable to anyone. Name me a corporate CEO who HASN'T been involved in a lot of lawsuits. And to have deep pockets does invite leeches.

I voted for Trump. If something were to happen to him during his term, something valid, I'd hope that Pence would do the things Trump promised. Otherwise, the voters are being hosed. And you seem OK with that.

To put it pithily - you're full of shit up to your earlobes.

Brando said...

"Pure conjecture. These are those types of veiled statements that look like they're saying something, but can be attributable to anyone. Name me a corporate CEO who HASN'T been involved in a lot of lawsuits. And to have deep pockets does invite leeches."

How does that make anything I wrote wrong? Are you suggesting he has NOT been involved in plenty of lawsuits? Whether they're BS lawsuits is besides the point.

The point is unless we had some sort of litigation reform then this is a lot more than "pure conjecture".

Bob Loblaw said...

It takes courage to sue Trump? No. She's facing literally no downside.

Now, if you were Russian and decided to sue Vladimir Putin... that's courageous.

Drago said...

Brando: "Whether they're BS lawsuits is besides the point."

Oh, I see your problem right there.

Laslo Spatula said...

Pamela Hood, Lawsuit Model…

You're a woman, and a Man of Power has taken advantage of you. Sure, you want to sue, but living through the horrors of the event in a courtroom seems more than you can bear. Well, I'm Pamela Hood, Lawsuit Model, and I'm here to help…

I will enact your traumatic event on film so that the jury can truly see your harrowing experience. I hire only the best professional commercial actors to portray your Offender -- and Powerful Old White Men are a specialty…!

Were you naked when The Man of Power took advantage of you? I have no problem being naked on film! Did he grab you by the ears in a nonconsensual manner during a blow-job? Let ME be the one to gag on his cock with mascara running down my face…!

With Pamela Hood, Lawsuit Model, your lawyers can show exactly what happened, exactly as you have described it! It is one thing to hear about being used and degraded by an entire basketball team, but why talk about it when you can SHOW it! And -- yes -- I do anal…!

So please, call Pamela Hood, Lawsuit Model, and get the Justice you deserve! And -- when you contact us -- please ask about our Presidential Specials….!

I am Laslo.

Sydney said...

I have become very jaded. I no longer believe public claims of sexual harassment.

Curious George said...

"Bob Loblaw said...
It takes courage to sue Trump? No. She's facing literally no downside.

Now, if you were Russian and decided to sue Vladimir Putin... that's courageous."

Or Obama. Could you imagine what the press would do if someone did this to Barry? Look what they did to Joe the Plumber.

MikeR said...

Interesting to read over there the comments: conservatives mention Bill Clinton's women, liberals call them sluts, conservatives call this one a slut...
Apparently, truth or falsehood of these cases depends on which party you're in - in either direction.

Earnest Prole said...

Should a President be sued for sexual harassment? It appears the answer depends on whether he has a D or an R following his name.

MayBee said...

MikeR- who called her a slut?

Brando said...

"Oh, I see your problem right there."

I'm not sure what you're arguing--nuisance lawsuits are nothing new and if you think Trump's enemies or any attention-seeker (or money seeker) isn't going to use them then welcome to America, enjoy your stay.

Curious George said...

"MikeR said...
Interesting to read over there the comments: conservatives mention Bill Clinton's women, liberals call them sluts, conservatives call this one a slut...
Apparently, truth or falsehood of these cases depends on which party you're in - in either direction."

The only one referring to her as a slut is you. DO you always make up shit to support your argument?

Curious George said...

Let me guess that the "well that's what you emant" rebuttal is next.

n.n said...

Snark:

Is the e-mail also a lark? There is a notable and historical lack of presumption.

who called her a slut?

Apparently, no one; but, now that it's in the open, it will propagate as long as it remains viable, then it will summarily be aborted. People also see dead Soviets. So, nothing is beyond the realm of impossibility in The Twilight Zone (a.k.a. penumbra).

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Bob Loblaw said...
Now, if you were Russian and decided to sue Vladimir Putin... that's courageous.

That guy puts women in prison for flashing him!

n.n said...

nuisance lawsuits are nothing new... welcome to America

Democrats operate a legal economy as a near monopoly. It's really quite an impressive achievement.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger MackM said...
Trump might be a bit concerned if The Apprentice tapes are subpoenaed. I wonder if he lies under oath and it's proven to be a lie, will he be subject to impeachment. I'm thinking yes.

Another person who does not understand the process. Congress could impeach Trump as soon as he takes hand off the Bible, for any reason it cares to.

Brando said...

"Democrats operate a legal economy as a near monopoly. It's really quite an impressive achievement."

It'd be nice to see the GOP finally address litigation reform, as they seem to promise to do every time they don't have unified control of government. Now that they don't have that excuse, we'll see what happens.

Bob Loblaw said...

It'd be nice to see the GOP finally address litigation reform, as they seem to promise to do every time they don't have unified control of government. Now that they don't have that excuse, we'll see what happens.

I was frustrated as hell the last time the Republicans were in control. Hopefully this time around they'll think back and realize what's going to happen if they don't make a good faith effort to deliver on some of the campaign promises.

Owen said...

EDH: "there's a 'litigation privilege' shielding court pleadings. Out of court statements do not enjoy such privilege even in the context of underlying litigation." Thanks. I had figured there must be privilege sufficient to defend oneself within the judicial process; but it makes sense that if you then stand on the courthouse steps and give the reporters a defamatory account, you are on your own. ...Which makes it odd that Trump would do so, if he'd gone to the trouble of lawyering-up for the case itself. Maybe he's an incorrigible client and his lawyers cannot keep him from shooting himself in the foot...

Anyway, I can't try to follow serious discussion on this thread now that Laslo has, once again, crushed all contenders for Threadwinner Trophy. Unbelievable!

TWW said...

"It takes a great deal of courage to sue the most powerful man on the planet."

No it doesn't. It takes a few words on a sheet of paper, service of process and a filing fee.

Brando said...

"I was frustrated as hell the last time the Republicans were in control. Hopefully this time around they'll think back and realize what's going to happen if they don't make a good faith effort to deliver on some of the campaign promises."

I'm keeping my expectations low, that way I can only be pleasantly surprised.

Or horrified. There's that low expectations again.

madAsHell said...

No, of course that is not the real account of Summer Zervos.

The account also tells me that she will be signing her new book at the Dunkin' Donuts in Huntington Beach. I'm not sure a fake account would include such tweets.

Chuck said...

TWW said...
"It takes a great deal of courage to sue the most powerful man on the planet."
No it doesn't. It takes a few words on a sheet of paper, service of process and a filing fee.


"Personal service" on the President of the United States is an interesting notion, isn't it? Think the Secret Service might have some say in that? ;-)

Seriously, those things are routinely solved by counsel for the defendant accepting service on behalf of the client, by agreement.

MikeR said...

@Curious George, MayBee "The only one referring to her as a slut is you. DO you always make up shit to support your argument?"

"Ahahahahahahahaha, another Allred case.... Another silly bimbo wanting some light in the festivities. Democrats do not know what to do about Trump, they are elevating Putin to soaring heights, now they are parading these bimbos."
"The gold digger was thrown off TV show 1st week and she pursued Trump after that... LOL"

But you're probably right: I don't see the exact word "slut", just "bimbo" and "gold digger".

MayBee said...

Mike R- where is that quote from?

richard mcenroe said...

Gloria Allred valued the last woman she threw at Trump at $500,000.That's what shgevbpaid her to lie. Be interesting to know where the money came from.

MackM said...

"Gloria Allred valued the last woman she threw at Trump at $500,000.That's what shgevbpaid her to lie. Be interesting to know where the money came from."

Fake story.

http://www.snopes.com/summer-zervos-paid-500000/

"CLAIM: Summer Zervos was paid $500,000 to fabricate her sexual harassment claim against Donald Trump.

UNPROVEN
ORIGIN:On 3 November 2016, the web site Got News published an article reporting that former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos had been paid $500,000 to accuse Donald Trump of sexual harassment."

Bob Loblaw said...

Snopes is far from a neutral arbiter for this kind of stuff.

Comanche Voter said...

Anything that Gloria Allred is attached to has more than a whiff of the garbage dump.
Gloria is an attention seeker--as a lawyer maybe not so much.

n.n said...

Brando:

Now that they don't have that excuse, we'll see what happens.

If for that reason alone.

William said...

Nearly all the women who complained about Bill Cosby claimed that they didn't come forward earlier because they felt Cosby had such a revered reputation that bringing such allegations would be more likely to hurt their reputations than Cosby's. That was the case with Clinton's accusers. They all took a hit......I don't see such obstacles in suing Trump. He's easy to sue. In the interests of bipartisanship, I could say the same thing about Weiner.

Seeing Red said...

Ahhh, the TPM must have gone out.

I heard the women aren't a footnote in history comment on local TV yesterday.

Hens clucking.

Seeing Red said...

Bubba didn't leave cos it's only sex.

Michael K said...

Name me a corporate CEO who HASN'T been involved in a lot of lawsuits. And to have deep pockets does invite leeches.

I was once on a jury panel in Newport Beach CA, home of thousands of real estate developers. The judge, in voir dire, asked if anyone had been a defendant in a lawsuit. Every hand in the panel went up.

It was a mistrial in voir dire.

Anglelyne said...

Ron Winkleheimer: Of course she did. First of all, lie detectors are pseudo science. What little actual research that has been done has discredited them. But a huge industry has risen up around them and they are now implanted in the system.

I should know better by now, but I feel the urge to bang my head into the desk every time I read that "lie detector" tests are still being used, and the results reported as if they mean anything.

One hundred years from now it's likely they will be regarded as phrenology is now.

It astounds me that this isn't already the case for this ludicrous pseudo-science.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Here's my honest take: anyone using Allred as their attorney is, in my mind, lying until definitively proven otherwise.

I hate to sound overly tribal and I'm happy to stay far away from Trump myself, but cozying up to Allred, and CNN, and the like, Chuck? Pretty sad.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

MikeR said...Interesting to read over there the comments: conservatives mention Bill Clinton's women, liberals call them sluts, conservatives call this one a slut...Apparently, truth or falsehood of these cases depends on which party you're in - in either direction."

Tell you what, MikeR, as soon as some prominent rightwinger says "Trump can grab all the pussy/sexually assault as many women as he wants in the White House just as long as he builds that wall" or the equivalent you'll have a point. Until then it's just more false equivalence bullshit.

MikeR said...

"Mike R- where is that quote from?" From the article Althouse linked (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/summer-zervos-trump-lawsuit-apprentice-233716), in the comments, as I said. Two different comments.

'Tell you what, MikeR, as soon as some prominent rightwinger says "Trump can grab all the pussy/sexually assault as many women as he wants in the White House just as long as he builds that wall" or the equivalent you'll have a point. Until then it's just more false equivalence bullshit.' Getting some weird reactions to my comment, which was nothing but the simple truth. Do lefties really say the equivalent in reverse of what you posted?

Chuck said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Here's my honest take: anyone using Allred as their attorney is, in my mind, lying until definitively proven otherwise.

I hate to sound overly tribal and I'm happy to stay far away from Trump myself, but cozying up to Allred, and CNN, and the like, Chuck? Pretty sad.


WTF?!?

Where did I "cozy up" to Gloria Allred and CNN? I've posted at least a couple of lengthy posts in this thread calling Allred a "show pony" and criticizing the complaint that she drafted as "op-ed" writing?

What on earth are you whining about?


Clyde said...

And I'm sure that Gloria Allred feels so strongly about this that she'll represent those women pro bono.

Ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha-ha-ha! HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Yeah, had you going there for second, didn't I?

rcocean said...

Commie Chuck at it again. Tomorrow he'll be claiming to be a "real conservative". Honest.

rcocean said...

It reminds me of the lunatics over at "Red State" who spend 1/2 their time attacking Trump, 1/4 of their time attacking the liberals, and 1/4 attacking Muslims and anyone who crosses Israel.

Jupiter said...

Blogger Bob Loblaw said...
"Snopes is far from a neutral arbiter for this kind of stuff."

Well, in Snopes' defense, Snopes isn't actually Snopes any more. If you take a look at the article in question, you will see that the byline is "Dan Evon". Here is what Dan Evon has to say for himself;

"Dan Evon is a Chicago-based writer and longtime truth enthusiast. His work has appeared somewhere, and he earned a degree at the University of His Choosing. His exploration of Internet truth has been supported by grants from the Facebook Drug Task Force."

So, that's who is writing the authoritative posts at Snopes that MackM is linking.

Tarrou said...

First off, women are a footnote to most of history, but that seems orthogonal.

Secondly, the value of any allegation of injustice by anyone, male or female, is directly linked to its veracity.

Is this what they teach in law school?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

MikeR: yes, I was referring to the various "feminist" defenses of Billy Clinton, including one prominent gal who said she'd happily fellate Clinton in the Oval Office as long as he protected Roe v Wade. For real.

Chuck: you sticking up for CNN was a couple-a posts ago. You in his thread were reeeeeal quick to jump on the "let's make this about criticizing Trumps position" angle, but its not whining--you post as you feel, man.

Big Mike said...

@HoodlumDoodlum, I don't think that Summer Zervos is a slut, but I do think she's a liar. I someone accuses Trump -- or any man -- of unwanted sexual advances then he has a right to say that the accuser is not making a true statement. So the suit ought to be dismissed out of hand and with prejudice. I don't know who's paying Allred, but if it's Zervos then she's an idiot as well as a liar.

Chuck said...

rcocean said...
Commie Chuck at it again. Tomorrow he'll be claiming to be a "real conservative". Honest.


So let's sum up in short form the points I've expressed on just this comments thread:

12:00 - It's funny and ironic that Trump, the guy who wanted to "open up the libel laws [for plaintiffs]" is now a defendant in a libel case.

12:13 - This particular case, while imbued with sexual assault claims, is not a cause of action for sexual assault, but rather only for defamation.

12:17 - It didn't take any "courage" for the plaintiff to file this lawsuit.

1:04 - Answering another commenter's question, I pointed out that the civil assault statute has almost certainly run by this time, and that the reason for the (new and timely) civil action for defamation was Trump's own aggressive verbal counter-punching after the "sex assault" claims were made by the various women.

1:07 - Addressing myself to Althouse, I wondered if she had read Gloria Allred's complaint, which I thought was beneath the dignity and quality of what a serious pleading ought to demonstrate in a United States District Court.

3:28 - Was a cheeky comment about serving lawsuit papers on someone who was President of the United States, after someone mentioned "service."

5:56 - "HoodlumDoodlum" made some weird comment about my cozying up to Gloria Allred and CNN. I didn't get it and I still don't get it.

So what the fuck are you now talking about? Your comment is just some shitty trolling.

rhhardin said...

I'm trying to think of a history footnote that a woman might be in.

Perhaps Lady Godiva in a history of horsemanship.

F said...

Gloria Allred. Again. One-trick pony.

Birkel said...

Denying allegations in a lawsuit DO NOT extend the statute by giving rise to a defamation lawsuit.

Gloria Allred is a poor attorney, imo, and a partisan hack.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Denying allegations in a lawsuit DO NOT extend the statute by giving rise to a defamation lawsuit.


Do you not understand, that none of that is at issue in the newly-filed action?

The newly-filed action doesn't depend on any extended statute. It relates to things that were said by Trump, or published by Trump, or were published at the direction of Trump, within the last 12 months. And Trump isn't being sued for denying sexual abuse allegations. Trump is being sued for calling the women liars and fabricators, and for impugning them by claiming he had never met them, etc., etc.

I am not claiming, and I haven't claimed, that the plaintiff's got a strong case. But Trump is not being sued for any old standard denial(s). Trump's being sued for some vintage Trump hit-back action.

Anyway, there is no question about any old cause(s) of action, or any extension of a statute of limitations.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, what's defamatory about calling a liar a liar?

Big Mike said...

I mean, perhaps he could have diplomatically suggested that they are mendacious prevaricators, but otherwise ...

Chuck said...

Big Mike, please don't ask me to be Gloria Allred's co-counsel. I'm not the least bit interested. Why don't you read the Complaint for yourself? Or, at least just read the previous posts in this thread?

Crazy Jane said...

I don't know what happened here, and I don't really care. Anyone who takes Gloria Allred's clients' complaints at face value is hopelessly naive.

I'm not naive. I was blackballed at least once for a job I deserved by a former colleague whose advances I had pretended to ignore. I also have seen excellent, selfless women perform very well in COO roles.

Trump seems to have been able to hear "no" from executive women who meant "no." I can't speak for beauty queens or models. Maybe their lives are much more difficult.

In my own experience, mean-girl divas were the most eager to sabotage professional women who were perceived as threats.

MayBee said...

MikeR- sorry, I didn't catch that you were writing about the comments over there. Of course you can always find any two people saying something on the internet.

(ps. I don't think gold digger = slut)

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Women are not a footnote to history"
Who was the wife of Johannes Sebastian Bach?*
*Maria Barbara Bach, Johannes second cousin, 1684-1720. After her death, Johannes married Anna Magdalena Wilcke (1701-1760). According to Wikipedia, Anna was an accomplished singer.

BD TipsBoss said...

Nice

http://BengaliTVShow.com

tim in vermont said...

This is what is good about having a Republican president. Were he a Democrat, the press would be shut shaming her at a minimum.

Maybe they will remember what doing their job is supposed to be like. Just kidding, that will never happen.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, I'm not asking you to do anything except try to understand the perspective of an ordinary American who voted for Trump reluctantly because the alternatives were even more vomit-inducing. (1) Gloria Allred has a lengthy history of pursuing meritless lawsuits against high profile Republicans, financed by who knows whom. (2) We want Donald Trump to hit back hard; that's a feature. The nice Mitt Romney got beaten by a profoundly ignorant man in large part because he was just too nice for the job.

Trump has a lot of work ahead of him to clean up the mess that the Hyde Park village idiot left behind. He should have the full support of every honest adult in doing so.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump:

If I want something out of you I will slap it out. If I address you, it will be obvious. I will type your whole name, as above.

MikeR said...

@HoodlumDoodlum "MikeR: yes, I was referring to the various "feminist" defenses of Billy Clinton, including one prominent gal who said she'd happily fellate Clinton in the Oval Office as long as he protected Roe v Wade. For real." Well, I don't have any "equivalence" with that, can't imagine any. I'm just pointing out the relatively tame equivalence of believing the one who's on your side.
Even there it may not be equivalence. Republicans were certainly seeking advantage during the Bill Clinton years, as well Democrats. But I have never ever seen the absolutely insane insistence by the left this time around of trying anything at all no matter how ridiculous. Where people paid millions of dollars for recounts in states that they obviously lost, and gave impassioned demands to electors to change their votes, I think it's forgivable to imagine that they may gin up some ladies, who may be just as motivated politically, to exaggerate their stories.

Meade said...

"*Maria Barbara Bach, Johannes second cousin"

Funny, I could've sworn she was married to Ringo.

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
...
... We want Donald Trump to hit back hard; that's a feature.


I get that. Of course I get that. I just think it's funny -- and so it was my first comment on the matter -- that Trump was the guy who wanted to "open up the libel laws." Trump wanted to make it easier to sue for defamation.

And now he's a defendant in a lawsuit for defamation.

Trump's pushback, just as you describe, got him a lawsuit. Trump and the Trumpkins no doubt think that it is meritless, meretricious, frivolous litigation. The same way that the Clintons regarded the Paula Jones case.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump, thinks the Left was going to avoid Lawfare after they lost the Quad-fecta* of elections? Bull shit, idiot propagandist.

*President, Senate, House and Governorships

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump, thinks the Left was going to avoid Lawfare after they lost the Quad-fecta* of elections? Bull shit, idiot propagandist.

I don't think that; I never thought that. The left, and "Lawfare," are inseparable. Conjoined twins. And since I never wrote anything like what you suggest, I wonder where you came up with that weird and mistaken notion about me.

And still, you've got no real answer to the Trump irony about "opening up the libel laws."

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump:
I admit I am no mind reader and cannot read either Trump's or Chuck's mind. Happy?

My point, easy to miss as it was for a propagandist like you, is that nothing Trump did or did not do has encouraged the Lawfare of the Left. It was coming no matter what. That this particular piece of useless Lawfare has given you purchase to hawk your anti-Trump wares is silly.

I enjoy your foolishness on display for all and sundry to see. Keep the boring ones to a minimum and amuse me with your holier than thou bull shit.

Chuck said...

No, Birkel; here's the point. If Trump were a traditional tort reform Republican, he would never have said anything so foolish as, "We need to open up the libel laws." And he wouldn't have had his own freakshow history of frivolous defamation litigation (both threatened and pursued).

If somebody were to say, laughingly, that prick Trump; he had this one coming! He's been filing bogus libel claims, and threatening bogus libel claims for decades! Well, I'd have no rejoinder. No one could ever say such a thing about George W. Bush, or Mitt Romney, or John McCain, who never came close to such lunacy.

See, Birkel; I am not trying to convince you of anything. My point is simply that Donald Trump is an asshole. That's all. Prove me wrong, if you wish. Or not.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...See, Birkel; I am not trying to convince you of anything. My point is simply that Donald Trump is an asshole

Do you imagine anyone, at this point, doesn't understand that to be your position, Chuck? Can you understand why it's gotten a bit stale, hearing that from you nearly every post you can work it into? Do ya get how someone repeating themselves, repeatedly, no matter whether warranted or not might annoy others and might make them dismissive of whatever other points you might want to make?

Naah, it's the rest of the world that's the problem; I get it.

Birkel said...

Me: "My point..."
Chuck: "...here's the point..."

Me: Hey, you arrogant prick... Claim your point for yourself instead of pretending that your point is 'the' point. It's yours but it is one of many you dismissive, pompous and entirely ignorant shit stain.