People going after Trump first might need to navigate around confidentiality agreements. Then be ready to sustain a barrage of gold-digger accusations, political hack accusations, and slut shaming in the media. Plus crazy-ass stalkers and death threats from people who love Trump too much. Plus possible discrimination from employers who either don't like you for making the accusation or just don't want the headache of working with someone who has this high-profile thing on their plate. And having to relive and testify to everything in detail in the courts while Trump's lawyers pull out every trick in the book to undermine your credibility. And in the end, you probably don't have enough to win. The emotional distress that would await seems enormous to me. Still, a number of women came out last year because they thought there was a chance people would believe them and care about them. Then the voters picked Trump anyway, carried the vote of white women anyway, despite the pattern of sexual harassment that'd been established. I don't blame any of them for not wanting to push it any further after that national shrug. But it is interesting to see some of the sociology at work here. Cosby, Ailes, Weinstein, Sandusky, etc could get away with it for a long time. But at some point they couldn't. Trump can continue to get away with it. So, what changed that people who used to be able to protect themselves can do so no longer? If it's just the times that have changed, how did Trump manage to get away with it? Is it idiosyncratic or is he more powerful or a better operator? Is it a difference in industry and if he had stayed in entertainment, he'd be in trouble right now?
9 My contention is Trump is the original reality star. We would have known if he were a sexual predator a long time ago. It eventually comes to light. Look how many sexual predators who have been exposed the past 20 years including Catholic priests He is more popular than Winstein
We do know that he was a sexual predator. He had to settle a lawsuit for sexual harassment. He's had dozens of others who have come forward accusing him. It came to light for Trump before the Access Hollywood tape. It was known about him.
I find your defense of Trump to be both depressing and misguided. Trump as a wealthy individual and one who had much influence in media could certainly harm someone. His own claims of sexually harrassing pageant winners right there states that he understands he has a certain amount of power over them. Further Trump himself has threatened lawsuits against many critics. For someone who so ardently defends Trump and points out how successful he has been do you really believe that he is actually so powerful that he couldn't take action against those who he thinks are out to get him? Yes. As you noted Bill Clinton was in office even though there were several claims of sexual harrassment against him. Further Bill Clinton was never convicted of having sexual harrassing Monica Lewinsky and he certainly wasn't removed from office because of it. Impeachment is a political process not a criminal one. Congress could impeach a President for picking his nose but also not one who committed murder. So in other words you pity the man and feel he is so weak that you have to white knight for him online.
I said he has been treated unfairly on the topic. Nothing was proven. One ridiculous claim is he groped a woman in a public event We know Bill slept with Monica
It depends on what your level of proof is. Legally, he hasn't been proven guilty. Trump who claims he never settles lawsuits did settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. Trump has claimed that he sexually harassed/assaulted women before. The fact that he bragged about preying on women makes it seems strange that you would require more proof than that. If you want to get technical, I don't believe Weinstein has been found guilty in court either.
Hollywood is distancing themselves from Weinstein. . . . but several years back they were all caping for Polanski I have heard some disgusting things about Weinstein but . . . I have yet to hear he drugged and violated a 13 year old Rocket River
It is very strange that right-wing activists keep trying to tie Harvey Weinstein to the Democrats and hope to sink them with his horrible behavior. 1. Democrats have returned money donated by Weinstein and much of it to charities that benefit women. 2. He has been kicked out of his company. 3. He has been kicked out of the Academy. It seems like they are taking the kind of steps that organizations should take when they become aware of this type of activity. Have Republicans who got money and aid from Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly given that money to women's charities? Have they given any of it away at all?
The problem is that you're truly a sick individual who has some bizarre need to defend Trump when, clearly, it is very easy for him to get away with assaulting women. My gosh, the guy admits to grabbing women by the p***y- now, I don't care how attracted a woman is to Trump, or how flirtatious she is, the likelihood of a woman consenting to a guy grabbing her by the p***y is extremely far-fetched. I'm done arguing this with you. Clearly, you have mental issues when it comes to Trump. That is truly sad.
The Clinton Foundation will not return as much as $250,000 in donations from disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein following the accusations of sexual harassment and rape. The foundation said Sunday that donations, ranging from $100,000 to $250,000, have already been spent on projects. Yep, Project Hillary!
Of course, the foundation provides no money for Hillary, Bill, or any campaigning from them. The foundation provides health services to those in need, and I'm happy that the money was spent on the good use. What have Republicans done with money from Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, etc.?
Didn't click on this thread for a few days but I figured it had turned into a Trump thread. Good job guys.
