I think he's going to double down. Which is why I also think HRC needs a stronger response than she's given if it comes up in the next debate. Even just saying despite everything she loves him and wanted to stay married to him. I don't know...I don't think she has to go too much into it but I think she needs to say something a little more than what she has been.
Per CNN the women didn't want to be named and nyt didn't want to publish anonymous stories. After he denied his actions at the debate the women agreed to be named.
I have to point out the hypocrisy in this. News outlets everywhere seem to have no qualms about quoting unnamed sources from within the Trump campaign. They defend their sources anonymity.
??
you don't see how somebody reporting something of national importance off the record, which is done ALL THE TIME in the business world and politics is any different than a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the national news???
I have to point out the hypocrisy in this. News outlets everywhere seem to have no qualms about quoting unnamed sources from within the Trump campaign. They defend their sources anonymity.
??
you don't see how somebody reporting something of national importance off the record, which is done ALL THE TIME in the business world and politics is any different than a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the national news???
I haven't had coffee, so my reading comprehension might be off this morning. I absolutely understand a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the news. I'm upset that victims came forward, but the Times wouldn't report on it unless they were willing to put their names out there. These women are incredibly brave.
you don't see how somebody reporting something of national importance off the record, which is done ALL THE TIME in the business world and politics is any different than a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the national news???
I haven't had coffee, so my reading comprehension might be off this morning. I absolutely understand a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the news. I'm upset that victims came forward, but the Times wouldn't report on it unless they were willing to put their names out there. These women are incredibly brave.
ok- I can agree that it's a double standard in general that for a sexual assault victim to be given "credibility" they have to do so publicly (unfortunately). It sucks that they (as well as many others probably) are being victimized again with Dumpster fire doubling down on all his claims & denying he's ever done anything but "respect women"
you don't see how somebody reporting something of national importance off the record, which is done ALL THE TIME in the business world and politics is any different than a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the national news???
I haven't had coffee, so my reading comprehension might be off this morning. I absolutely understand a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the news. I'm upset that victims came forward, but the Times wouldn't report on it unless they were willing to put their names out there. These women are incredibly brave.
You did see what Trump's response was to the NYT? They knew what he would take them to court which would put the reporter and paper in a difficult position and undermine the story (it must not be true they don't have anyone coming forward) It sucks but they HAD to have the women on the record. For the same reason the WP required 2 named sources for each watergate story. Some stories are too big for off the record because it will allow the story to be dismissed or spun.
Even if Trump files a suit against NYT, isn't there a 20 day period to file an answer in New York State, which can be subject to an extension? By then, election is over and President Clinton will get a "special prosecutor" who will look into Trump's sexual assault cases.
I haven't had coffee, so my reading comprehension might be off this morning. I absolutely understand a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the news. I'm upset that victims came forward, but the Times wouldn't report on it unless they were willing to put their names out there. These women are incredibly brave.
You did see what Trump's response was to the NYT? They knew what he would take them to court which would put the reporter and paper in a difficult position and undermine the story (it must not be true they don't have anyone coming forward) It sucks but they HAD to have the women on the record. For the same reason the WP required 2 named sources for each watergate story. Some stories are too big for off the record because it will allow the story to be dismissed or spun.
Also, he is fucking stupid for wanting to take this to court. Does he realize the type of shit that will come out in discovery? Does he honestly not realize that the NYT doesn't mess around and they have likely vetted these people and fact checked their stories? Does he realize that the NYT knows all about the standards for libel and defamation? He is walking right into their trap.
Even if Trump files a suit against NYT, isn't there a 20 day period to file an answer in New York State, which can be subject to an extension? By then, election is over and President Clinton will get a "special prosecutor" who will look into Trump's sexual assault cases.
It's not really about the suit as much as undermining the story even without them a suit is more nuisance then anything. My guess is the reporter was still working the story, looking for other victims, talking to these women about coming forward. Putting the story out there without the women could allow Trump's team to spin it as 'media bias' and move the story off the assaults. Sometimes it's a hard choice between putting a story that isn't strong enough out there for rebuttal and sitting on a story until you build the blocks to make it ready to print.
Someone on twitter or FB (maybe Ezra Klein) made a comment last night about how he expects Melania to invite the Trump accusers to tea, because apparently that's what Hillary should have done.
Hillary needs an answer to how she treated bill's accusers. I don't think it has be a super complicated answer, because honestly, I think most women can understand thinking that every victim of sexual assault deserves to be heard, while also feeling defensive when someone accuses your husband, of either sexual assault or harassment or just claims to have had an affair with him.
I don't think it excuses her treatment of those women, by any means, but I don't think this is a situation where the campaign has to get super complex. I also think it is going to be hard for the Trump campaign to attack Hillary for this while they attack the women accusing Trump in a similar manner.
I mean, they're going to do it (attack her), but I think it's going to ring false and not help Trump the way Kellyanne is expecting.
Even if Trump files a suit against NYT, isn't there a 20 day period to file an answer in New York State, which can be subject to an extension? By then, election is over and President Clinton will get a "special prosecutor" who will look into Trump's sexual assault cases.
It's not really about the suit as much as undermining the story even without them a suit is more nuisance then anything. My guess is the reporter was still working the story, looking for other victims, talking to these women about coming forward. Putting the story out there without the women could allow Trump's team to spin it as 'media bias' and move the story off the assaults. Sometimes it's a hard choice between putting a story that isn't strong enough out there for rebuttal and sitting on a story until you build the blocks to make it ready to print.
That makes sense. I also believe that when the tape came out and these women heard him bragging about sexual assault, it made it very real to them. Sometimes it's easier to suppress the violation and tell yourself it didn't happen. I think hearing him brag about it triggered these women to come forward. Unfortunately, there will be more coming forward. He is such a piece of shit!
Also, he is fucking stupid for wanting to take this to court. Does he realize the type of shit that will come out in discovery? Does he honestly not realize that the NYT doesn't mess around and they have likely vetted these people and fact checked their stories? Does he realize that the NYT knows all about the standards for libel and defamation? He is walking right into their trap.
I think HE thinks that threatening to sue will get them to back off. Because that's probably worked in the past - a lot. But he's opened himself up by running for president and I don't think he really "gets it" that he's on a different playing field now.
The man may be well educated, but his narcissism makes him dumb. He's no longer only answering to his sycophants. He's answering to the public.
I'm 99% certain that we're only hearing about all this shit NOW because everyone is completely incompetent.
The remaining 1% of me is wondering if all of these terrible things were held back on purpose, because had they been released earlier the GOP may have had time to kick Trump off the ticket and replace him with someone else like Pence.
Per CNN the women didn't want to be named and nyt didn't want to publish anonymous stories. After he denied his actions at the debate the women agreed to be named.
This is accurate. My mother is friends with the family of one of these ladies, and multiple people in her family have already received hostile communications from Trump supporters.
I agree with a couple people above the HRC needs a better, stronger answer about Bill. It can be brief - because sometimes the more you talk, the worse it gets - but she needs something more definitive to put it to rest.
I haven't had coffee, so my reading comprehension might be off this morning. I absolutely understand a sexual assault victim not wanting their name splashed all over the news. I'm upset that victims came forward, but the Times wouldn't report on it unless they were willing to put their names out there. These women are incredibly brave.
ok- I can agree that it's a double standard in general that for a sexual assault victim to be given "credibility" they have to do so publicly (unfortunately). It sucks that they (as well as many others probably) are being victimized again with Dumpster fire doubling down on all his claims & denying he's ever done anything but "respect women"
Most anonymous sources are known contacts. Reporters don't typically use an anon source unless they have a relationship with them. If I reported on every "tip" I heard from an angry person, we would be sued endlessly. The women being willing to use their names -- while clearly incredible difficult for an assault victim -- lends a great deal of credibility that can often only be culled through weeks of investigation. These women should be commended for their bravery.
Also - because the threats about suing the NYT are really bothering me - how is that acceptable? Trump is basically trying to issue a warning shot and let news organizations know that if they publish stuff about him he doesn't like, he will sue. I feel like he's probably been chomping at the bit to send off a letter like that and this is the first time he's really had even the slightest glimmer of a reason to do so.
I know we've been discussing this for a while, but forget the 19th amendment. It seems like the 1st amendment will be the first to fall under a president trump.
Also - because the threats about suing the NYT are really bothering me - how is that acceptable? Trump is basically trying to issue a warning shot and let news organizations know that if they publish stuff about him he doesn't like, he will sue. I feel like he's probably been chomping at the bit to send off a letter like that and this is the first time he's really had even the slightest glimmer of a reason to do so.
I know we've been discussing this for a while, but forget the 19th amendment. It seems like the 1st amendment will be the first to fall under a president trump.
He can sue for whatever he wants. Doesn't mean he'll win.
ETA: He's also clearly feeding his base that believes "media" is bad and unfair.
I know we've been discussing this for a while, but forget the 19th amendment. It seems like the 1st amendment will be the first to fall under a president trump.
But don't take away the 2nd amendment!!! THAT one is gospel. All the others? Eh, we can do without.
Also - because the threats about suing the NYT are really bothering me - how is that acceptable? Trump is basically trying to issue a warning shot and let news organizations know that if they publish stuff about him he doesn't like, he will sue. I feel like he's probably been chomping at the bit to send off a letter like that and this is the first time he's really had even the slightest glimmer of a reason to do so.
I know we've been discussing this for a while, but forget the 19th amendment. It seems like the 1st amendment will be the first to fall under a president trump.
He can sue for whatever he wants. Doesn't mean he'll win.
I understand that. My worry is that this is a preview of his greater plan if he were to win - to shut down all unfavorable press, through one means or another.
He can sue for whatever he wants. Doesn't mean he'll win.
I understand that. My worry is that this is a preview of his greater plan if he were to win - to shut down all unfavorable press, through one means or another.
He's pretty much said he would, so I think those fears are justified!