The 2nd Presidential Debate - The Donald vs The Hillary!

Funny thing. Ironic, I mean.

When I was in college, about the same time some of these accusations were made, we used to joke that if a guy went down to the quad and simply asked every girl that passed by, "let's fuck," that you'd get slapped a few times and a few would say "yes."

The guy might have made passes at many many women. "Inappropriate touching" like kissing is what a pass is all about. It's absurd to think that the dating ritual should include asking each other for permission to touch beforehand. A guy makes a pass, the woman says "I'm not interested" (or is interested) and that's that.

The timing of these accusations is most definitely suspect. The veracity of some of the stories does not hold up to even a little bit of scrutiny. The news organizations are manufacturing "proof" to support the women's claims and the veracity of that "proof" is dubious.

Strategically, the crook's allies simply need to keep Trump on the defensive about these (bogus) claims through the election so the crook's record isn't scrutinized any further.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-inside-the-donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuit/

In addition to her personal accounts, Harth made a litany of other claims against Trump including allegations that he had an adulterous affair, that he retaliated against those who crossed him by making sexually charged allegations and even accused him of making “racial slurs.” Harth said that on the same evening of Jan 9, 1993 at a “Calendar Girl” competition Trump directed “any black female contestant to be excluded.”

At the time, Trump vigorously denied the charges saying the suit “was a desperate attempt to get me to settle a case they can’t win.” But then, not even a month after filing the case, Harth withdrew it. The court record indicates it was “voluntarily dismissed” but “without prejudice,” meaning she could have re-filed the case. The timing is interesting because at around the same time the case was withdrawn, Trump reportedly agreed to settle with her husband’s company, The American Dream Enterprise, according to an obscure 1997 gossip article in the New York Daily News which appears to be the only mainstream media coverage of either suit.

American Dream Enterprise had filed a breach of contract lawsuit in 1995 against Trump which was apparently peppered with Harth’s allegations, according to the Daily News. LawNewz.com reviewed the court docket from the breach-of-contract case and it does indeed show that the affidavits of George Houraney and Jill Harth were both ordered sealed in September of 1996. There are no other accounts of what was contained in those sealed affidavits.

LawNewz.com spoke briefly to Jill Harth in an interview last week. Harth wouldn’t’ discuss the settlement or much about either lawsuit. When asked about the allegations, Harth told LawNewz that she was “under duress” and “pressured” to file the case. But when questioned about who applied that pressure, she wouldn’t say.

So were the sexual harassment allegations true? Harth says: “The allegations were twisted and embellished. Everything could be looked at in different way.”

Harth, who now runs a beauty business, says she’s put the lawsuit behind her, and get this, she says she’d even vote for Donald Trump in the upcoming election — what she calls “supporting a friend.”

“I saw him [Donald] recently, and he said I looked good,” Harth said. “I have nothing but good things to say about Donald.”

 

True. I should have said: you don't see a difference between being an asshole and claiming to be a groper?

barfo

 

Perhaps Steve Bannon is going to be the new CEO of the Trailblazers after the election.

barfo

 

All I really know about WikiLeaks is they have an online, searchable, database of documents governments and candidates don't want the public to see. And they were equally devastating to the Bush administration as it is to the crook and Obama administration.

My agenda is to have the media do its job. If it isn't, then why vote? We should just let the media pick the politicians. I see it as a VERY dangerous thing.

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3173



NYTimes coordinating with the Clinton campaign.

This might be beyond unethical and in the realm of illegal.

 

Really? What law would that be violating?

barfo

 

Illegal campaign donations.

Candidates aren't allowed to coordinate with their PACs.

 

I don't see anything in there about a PAC... what am I missing?

barfo

 

The media is a PAC for her.



Fits them to a "T"

 

Ha ha.

barfo

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $2,600 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.[3]

(How much $$$ is a column worth? $2600, if not more.)

According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quobargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.[24][25]