Defamation or Damage Control? Trump Praises Rod Porter While Porter Claims Innocence

Rob Porter's ex-wife Colbie Holderness is pictured in a photo from 2005, when she says Porter gave her a black eye on an Italy trip.It is like a broken record in politics. A powerful man is accused of a despicable and criminal act toward women.  He emphatically denies the allegation and then . . . crickets.  President Donald Trump cited Rod Porter’s claim of innocence and praised him and is now facing criticism over his failure to express concern for the women in the scandal.

In the meantime, Porter has not done the obvious thing if his two prior wives are indeed lying about his being a vile abuser of women . . . he has not threatened, let alone promised, a defamation action.

As I discussed with regard to the Roy Moore scandal, it is often telling who sues first in such controversies since clearly someone is not just a liar but a despicable liar. Moore has not filed his promised lawsuits, but he has been sued (Moore is trying to dismiss the lawsuits).

If these women ruined the career of one of the fastest rising stars in Washington, one would expect a notice letter from counsel promising an expedited libel lawsuit.  After all, the denial of Porter seemed quite categorical (as are reports of his assurances given to White House personnel):

“These outrageous allegations are simply false. I took the photos given to the media nearly 15 years ago and the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described. I have been transparent and truthful about these vile claims, but I will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear campaign.”

Ok, that is a good start to a denial.  He is claiming that he took the photos and that the allegation is entirely false.  But it leaves more questions like why he took the photos and whether he is denying that he did hit his wife.

Whether he “engages” or not, the media coverage will continue.  After all, he has both former wives (and reportedly a live in girlfriend) giving damaging accounts of his conduct.  Even by Washington standards, running through two spouses before you are out of your 40s is rather notable. Moreover, these very credible accusers are describing a similar pattern of behavior.

Moreover, he now has a president taking heat for him and a current lover, Hope Hicks, who is facing very serious questions of a conflict of interest over her involvement in the early (and later altered) spin on the scandal.  Even his immediate boss, Gen. John Kelly, is facing calls for his resignation over his support for Porter based on his assertions of innocence.  All of these people are now in harm’s way because they believe Porter’s claim that the photo and allegations are entirely false.  Remaining silent is leaving these people to twist in the wind.

If he was defamed, one would expect two notice letters would have been sent by now to the women and at least one to the Daily Mail.  If he is lying, he has left a pile of wreckage that now includes his current relationship, recently ended relationship, and his former bosses ranging from Sen. Orin Hatch to Gen. Jon Kelly to the President of the United States.

The story was first posted by Daily Mail.  Both of Porter’s ex-wives described him as having a violent and angry disposition.  His first wife, Colbie Holderness, said that he punched in her the face during a trip to Florence, Italy, in 2005. She produced the photos now circulating in the media.

What is curious is that the White House counsel and others knew of these allegations in 2017 and they have been linked to Porter’s failure to secured a clearance.  Yet, at no time has Porter indicated that he would take legal action over any false statements.

If the allegations are “outrageous” and “untrue,” then file for defamation.  Otherwise, this denial seems less credible and more tactical in this scandal.

What do you think?


244 thoughts on “Defamation or Damage Control? Trump Praises Rod Porter While Porter Claims Innocence”

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      “In declining to declassify the document, the White House also sent lawmakers a letter signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Wray, as well as a marked-up copy of the memo, laying out portions it considers too sensitive to make public. Among those passages are some that the Justice Departments says could compromise intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations and national security if disclosed.”

      Well, surprise, surprise, surprise. Rosenstein and Wray object to releasing the Democratic memo without redactions to protect sources, methods, ongoing investigations and national security. You know what? Rosenstein and Wray are probably correct in their assessment of the identifiable and describable damage to national security that would be done by unredacted disclosure of the Democratic memo. If so, then the redaction of the Democratic memo would not be done to spare the FBI and the DOJ embarrassment nor to conceal any criminal activity on the part of the FBI and the DOJ. And if that outcome just so happens to benefit The POTUS, Trump, then so be it. Sources, methods, ongoing investigations and national security are far more important than embarrassing or incriminating The POTUS, Trump, who remains quite perfectly capable of embarrassing and incriminating himself without any help from his friends at the DOJ and the FBI.

      1. There was a fair amount of “back and forth” between the DOJ/ FBI, the House Intelligence Commiittee Majority, and the White House prior to the release of the GOP memo.
        It looks like the same process is playing out with the Democratic minority memo….the NBC and other articles mention that Trump and the DOJ/FBI object to the release of the Dem. memo “in its current form”.
        Those same objections were raised by FBI/DOJ over release of the GOP memo…I don’t know if those agencies were totally mollified by late alterations in that memo, but as in the case of the GOP memo, the Democrats’ memo won’t go straight to the media without input from the White House, and the DOJ/FBI.

        1. “Schiff: Dems will review suggested memo redactions from DOJ and FBI”.
          -from THE HILL, Feb.9, 2018

        2. Tom Nash, I’m so glad that you’ve finally come around to accepting that the information at issue in both memos was not classified for the sake of avoiding embarrassment nor concealing criminal activity on the part of the FBI and the DOJ, despite the fact that The POTUS, Trump, claims that the Ninny-Na-Na Nunes memo totally vindicated his oft-repeated claim of being the victim of the greatest political witch-hunt in history. Which, of course, was the main purpose of the Ninny-Na-Na Nunes memo.

          You see, Tom, the FBI and the DOJ refuse to defend themselves against the Trump’s smear campaign because the FBI and the DOJ care far more about protecting and defending the national security of The United States of America than The POTUS, Trump, does.

          1. L4D/HAL,..
            Since I don’t know what the unredacted, or “less-redacted”, versions of either the GOP or the DEM. memos look, I’m not likely to guess at the contents of the unredacted memos.
            If I did guess, I would qualify it as a guess, or “sheer speculation”, on my part.
            You have, or seem to think that you have, special insight into the contents I referred to; that is, you seem to know that there is a dual motive of national security considerations, and you know that the suggestion redactions are for the sake of not embarassing the Trump administration.
            You like to use words like “probably” or “likely” in your speculation(s).
            You also like to tell me what I have concluded, as in “Tom Nash, I’m so glad that you’ve finally come around to accepting that the information at issue in both memos was not classified for the sake of avoiding embarassment nor concealing criminal activity on the part of the FBI
            and the DOJ…”
            I’m not going to type in the rest of your marathon sentence, but it’s up there in your comment for anyone to untangle if they care to.
            I addessed the process of
            White House/ DOJ/FBI the the GOP and DEM. memos.
            That’s what I stated in my comments.
            I did NOT address “embarassment” or “criminal activities”….it’s your little game to either misquote people, of tell them ” what they have concluded”.
            As you like to say, “let me spell it out for you”…
            If you want to have a straight-forward exchange and drop the specious arguments and chickens*** games you like to play, then that is a possiblilty.
            It should not take a lengthy, involved reply like this to untangle distortions you spew out on a regular basis.

            1. Trump likely to approve release of memo following redactions requested by intelligence officials”.
              from The Washington Post, Feb.1, 2018
              This refers to the involvement of the DOJ/ FBI + The White House+ Nunes re the GOP memo.
              As I stated earlier, that memo did not go directly to the media upon completion…there was negoiations by/ involvement of different players, and that back and forth activity was widely covered by the media.
              The holdup in releasing the DEM. memo may be going through the same type of back and forth process….whatever the speculation might be on what the particular objections of the White House/ FBI/ DOJ might be, it should be recognized that the release of the GOP/ NUNES memo was not immediately cleared for release either.

            2. The pod bay doors are already open, Commander Bowman. The pod bay doors were never closed, Dave. I still have the highest hopes for the success of the mission. If you come across Major Thom while you’re out there, just bring the whole sports car back on board with you, please?

          2. ” the FBI and the DOJ care far more about protecting and defending the national security of The United States of America than The POTUS, Trump, does.”

            That is why Comey leaked FBI information and Trump did not. Wait, Comey is FBI and he leaked. It is he that doesn’t care about national security nor any of the other leakers at the FBI that are supposed to be apolitical. But we know some of the leadership wasn’t apolitical based upon emails and texts some of which openly state the desire to use their power at the FBI to thwart the President’s election and later his ability to function in office.

            1. What did Comey leak? His conversations with Trump. Why were Comey’s conversations with Trump classified? To protect national security? To spare Trump embarrassment? To conceal potential criminal activity on Trump’s part? Neither of the last two options are legitimate reasons to classify information. In fact there’s a law against classifying information for to cover up criminal activity or to hide embarrassment. Because of that law, it’s extremely doubtful that Comey’s memos about his conversations with Trump were ever classified. If any of Comey’s memos were classified, they would have had to have contained information the disclosure of which would cause damage to the national security by revealing sources, methods, ongoing investigations or cryptology. So what sources, methods, ongoing investigations or cryptology did Comey leak to the press? None. All that Comey leaked to the press was his conversations with Trump. Nothing in those conversations did any damage to the national security of The United States when disclosed.

              1. 28 CFR 17.22 – Classification of information; limitations.

                § 17.22 Classification of information; limitations.

                (d) Information shall not be classified in order to conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; to restrain competition; or to prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security. Information that has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority may not be reclassified.

                1. There is a way for information to be released. Comey broke the rules, even his own rules for political reasons. If he was comfortable with the release he would have released the information himself. He didn’t. He used a third party.

              2. Comey didn’t release information for the public to be more aware rather he released selective information to protect himself not the nation or the FBI. All of this could be released as far as I am concerned (except where valid national security concerns exist), but such selectivity and the withholding of other information demonstrates a politicized leadership of the FBI that should not exist. Furthermore, the FBI overstepped their bounds by NOT releasing information to Congress that was requested and by law should have been released. That also demonstrates the selective release of information being used to help cover up the politicalization of the leadership at the FBI.

                Additionally, Comey’s memo was a memo to himself placing him in a good light. That is not a true release of information and that is not even considered as proof in a court of law as to what actually occurred. As an example, I will send you a text that the loan of $1,000 I gave to you in cash is due next week. Without any confirmation that text would have no bearing on my claim of $1,000 from you. You neither understand the law nor can separate truth from fiction.

            2. False. You’re allowed you own (Pravda Faux News supplied) opinion, but not your own facts.

              This is to “dammit, I usually just wing it without getting caught” allan

              1. “False. You’re allowed you own (Pravda Faux News supplied) opinion, but not your own facts.”

                Marky Mark, you are repeating yourself.

                Are you saying Comey didn’t leak FBI information? That seems to be agreed by everyone including Comey.
                Are you saying that the texts of Stroik and Page don’t exist?

                Seems you don’t know what you are talking about. Start learning the facts.

                This is to doorknob dumb Marky.

                1. That’s true, Allan. You did not say that Comey leaked “classified information.” You said only that Comey leaked FBI information. Don’t blame Mark M. for my mistake. It seems he may have been misled by my reference to classified information.

                  1. Diane writes: Don’t blame Mark M. for my mistake. It seems he may have been misled by my reference to classified information.”

                    OK, if you say so, but Marky is still doorknob dumb.

      2. Diane – Schiff deliberately “salted” the memo with stuff that would require it be redacted. So, he sent it back to be rewritten. All of the Republican members of the committee voted to release the memo. None of the Democrats voted to release the Republican memo. Funny, hunh?

        1. The salty stuff to which you refer is the classified information that rebuts the Ninny-Na-Na Nunes memo. The Republicans voted to release the Democratic memo because they know the FBI and the DOJ will not disclose classified information that damages national security by revealing source and methods that are still needed to pursue ongoing investigations. It was a free kick, for the Republicans. Meanwhile, had the Ninny-Na-Na Nunes memo not been released, there would have been no need for a Democratic rebuttal memo to set the record straight. That’s the point, Schulteacher. The only way to set the record straight is to declassify information that ought not, indeed, will not be declassified. And that means that the FBI and the DOJ are not the partisan political witch-hunters whom Ninny-Na-Na Nunes and The POTUS, Trump, say they are.

          Remember: Robert Swan Muller The Third will not be deterred.

          1. Diane – Mueller was in charge of the anthrax attack back in the day. First, he charged the wrong guy, then he charged a guy who was working with them who committed suicide, so they closed the case. He really doesn’t have a great track record.

          2. Diane immediately responds to Paul saying: “The salty stuff to which you refer is the classified information that rebuts the Ninny-Na-Na Nunes memo.”

            Since it wasn’t released you don’t have the slightest idea what it said yet you draw firm conclusions demonstrating that nothing you say is worth listening to or believing.

            “It was a free kick, for the Republicans. ”

            Again, you don’t know anything of the kind because you don’t know what the Republicans would have liked to put in there or what information they have. It’s secret. Reading your stories is like reading Aesop’s Fables.

            “Meanwhile, had the Ninny-Na-Na Nunes memo not been released, there would have been no need for a Democratic rebuttal memo to set the record straight.”

            You don’t know what is in the rebuttal memo so you don’t know if it sets the record straight, but we can be fairly sure that what was contained in the Republican memo was true. That memo was read by the Democrats who stated that the world would fall apart if the memo were released and that all sorts of security would be jeopardized, but no such thing happened and no security was jeopardized.

            “And that means that the FBI and the DOJ are not the partisan political witch-hunters whom Ninny-Na-Na Nunes and The POTUS, Trump, say they are.”

            On the one hand, you know nothing that is being kept secret. On the other hand, you forget about the emails and the text messages that demonstrate partisanship at the FBI.

            You are a fund of inaccurate garbage and inaccurate conclusions based on a mindset that doesn’t know how to think.

            1. The Republican memo committed errors of omission for the purpose of smearing the FBI and the DOJ. The Democratic memo corrects the record by putting information erroneously omitted from the Republican memo back into evidence. That information is necessary to defend the FBI and the DOJ against the Trump/Nunes smear campaign. Unfortunately, that information is almost certainly and properly classified to protect sources and methods necessary to pursue ongoing investigations vital to the national security of The United States. Neither the FBI nor the DOJ are so craven as Trump and Nunes were to declassify information the disclosure of which will do damage to the national security simply for the sake of defending the FBI and the DOJ against the Trump/Nunes smear campaign. This necessarily means that the FBI and the DOJ care more about national security than Trump and Nunes do.

              1. The nonthinking mindset of Diane replies: “The Republican memo committed errors of omission for the purpose of smearing the FBI and the DOJ”

                List those errors. You can’t because that information has not yet been released while some of the texts, emails and sworn testimony have been released and demonstrate wrongdoing by the FBI and DOJ.

                “The Democratic memo corrects the record ”

                You haven’t seen it so you don’t know what it does. Typical Diane making up stories.

                “Neither the FBI nor the DOJ are so craven as Trump and Nunes were to declassify information the disclosure of which will do damage to the national security”

                Unfortunately for your argument, the Nunes memo was carefully thought out and nothing in that memo jeopardized national security despite the fact that initially you were claiming the world would come to an end if the memo were released. Schiff, on the other hand, seems to have inserted into his memo things that threaten national security. We will have to wait and see what the FBI has to say. My bet is that almost everything could be released without damage to operatives or our security but a lot of embarrassment to the FBI and the former administration. Trump, unlike Schiff and others, is trying to protect our security while releasing as much information as possible. He is doing a great job, though the task of protecting America is much more difficult because of people like Obama, Hillary Clinton and an uneducated public that is being fed by the news media left-wing opinion rather than news.

    2. Diane, since you have made so many statements about Comey I thought you would be interested in the present FOIA requests involving Comey and his selective releases of information. I am sure you support Judicial Watch in trying to release government information regarding Comey and everyone else.

      FBI Protecting Comey?

      The more we learn about the FBI under James Comey’s supervision the more we have reason to question the activities of the fired FBI Director. Because he has left a trail of suspicious activities in is wake, Comey now stands out as key figure in the Deep State’s illicit attempts to target President Trump.

      And it looks like the Deep State is protecting Comey still. We were forced to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for FBI records about former Director Comey’s book, which he signed to write in August 2017 and is set for publication in April 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice, (No. 1:18-cv-00220)).

      Our suit also seeks records of communications between Comey and the FBI prior to and regarding Comey’s controversial June 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

      We filed on January 31 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Justice Department failed to respond to our August 14, 2017, FOIA request for:

      · All records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017.
      · All records of communications between the FBI and Comey relating to an upcoming book to be authored by Comey and published.
      · All records, including but not limited to forms completed by Comey, relating to the requirement for prepublication review by the FBI of any book to be authored by Comey with the intent to be published or otherwise publicly available.

      Comey reportedly received an advance in excess of $2 million for his book, Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, reportedly set for publication on April 17th. Former FBI agents and officials intending to write books concerning their tenure are customarily required to submit the entire transcript for pre-publication review.

      A month after President Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017, Comey provided highly controversial testimony before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the circumstances that led to his dismissal, the ongoing investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit email server. During that testimony, Comey admitted he leaked information about his conversations with President Donald Trump in order to get a special prosecutor appointed. (In November, we filed a separate FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department for its records about Comey’s testimony.)

      Comey seems to have protected status for any misconduct, and we want to know if he had a special deal for his book from his friends in the FBI. The Deep State is in cover-up mode. The FBI, DOJ, and the Special Counsel are stonewalling our requests for Comey documents.

      We have several other lawsuits pending for Comey-related records:

      · Two lawsuits (here and here) seek specifically the “Comey memos” ((Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:17-cv-01189)) and (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01830));
      · One lawsuit seeks metadata of the “Comey memos” and related records-management information ((Judicial Watch, Inc., v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 17-cv-01520));
      · And another lawsuit seeks non-disclosure agreements pertaining to the handling, storage, protection, dissemination, and/or return of classified information signed by Comey ((Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01624)).

      On January 11, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the FBI to turn over the “Comey memos” for in camera review by the court. In doing so, the court rejected arguments by the Sessions Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuits seeking the Comey information.

      Unfortunately, on February 2, Boasberg ruled that the “Comey memos” would not be made public. Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation almost immediately appealed the ruling. We don’t intend to let up in our pursuit of the truth about the egregious conduct of the FBI’s former director.

      1. Judicial Watch said, “Comey admitted he leaked information about his conversations with President Donald Trump in order to get a special prosecutor appointed.”

        No kidding. Is that a crime? I’d call that patriotic whistleblowing of the sort that Judicial Watch ought to do. See Allan. Same fact; better interpretation. Comey’s conversations with Trump could not have been properly classified. They could have been subject to a claim of executive privilege–maybe. When Comey leaked his conversations with Trump, Comey effectively stymied any claim of executive privilege with respect to those conversations. And that’s what you and Turley and even Judicial Watch are really upset about. Comey did something good, for a change. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

        1. What Comey was doing was not releasing evidence rather a self-serving piece he wrote to argue on his behalf. That is typical of a prosecutor in a totalitarian nation that tries a political prisoner presenting only the states evidence leaving out all other evidence. Not only that but he did it through a third party, without review, and against FBI rules. I agree that transparency is good, but only when the transparency is impartial something that doesn’t seem to matter to you.

          On the other hand, both Judicial Watch and Congress have been trying to get a lot of information released that Comey and the FBI have prevented from being released.

          What you see to believe is transparency on Comey’s part is actually more in line with the way dictators act.

          “They could have been subject to a claim of executive privilege–maybe. ”

          That is a possibility and the FBI works within the executive branch. But Comey wasn’t releasing information to promote transparency. He was releasing his explanations or what he wished others to believe. That is closer to totalitarian propaganda.

          “Comey effectively stymied any claim of executive privilege with respect to those conversations.”

          Comey broke either laws or regulations. It appears that when an innocent does that innocently he is punished with a jail term, but when an anti-Trump employee releases self-serving information written by the party to protect himself that is no longer self-serving to you. Instead, it is patriotic. Your understanding of the law along with right and wrong is somewhat misguided.

          Comey is so transparent (sarcasm alert) that ” it looks like the Deep State is protecting Comey still. We were forced to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for FBI records about former Director Comey’s book, which he signed to write in August 2017 and is set for publication in April 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice, (No. 1:18-cv-00220)).”

      1. Allan, you might want to refresh you memory on the subjects of Alexander Butterfield and The Nixon Tapes.

        1. P. S. This is a settled question in the law. See: United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

          1. “P. S. This is a settled question”

            The case exists but does not relate to the argument at hand. You have to be more careful. You need to concentrate more to see if what you wish to place into argument actually pertains to the argument. Perhaps it is a failure of memory or your misunderstanding of facts.

      2. The special prosecutor subpeonaed the Nixon tapes after Alexander Butterfield testified that there was a taping system in the White House.
        John Dean had testified that he thought that Nixon might be taping conversations, and Butterfield confirmed that there was a taping system when he was directly questioned about it after Dean’s testimony.
        Nixon fought the Leon Jaworski over the subpeona….the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that Nixon had to turn over the tapes.
        Butterfield did not give the tapes to a friend in order for the friend to leak their contents to the press.
        Had he done so, a different set of issues would have played out re executive privilege and the handling of material belonging to the executive branch.
        The tape recording would likely have surfaced in any case, but the Jaworski subpeona and the SCOTUS decision were definative, straightforward and transparent ways to settle the legal issues involved.

        1. Yes, tom, I am aware of all of that. Diane, however, is using that information in her argument. Unfortunately, it doesn’t apply.

  1. The idea that someone’s career and life’s work can be destroyed because of Accusations is outrageous. Where is the police report? Was he arrested? What charges were filed against him? Was there a trial? Did he plead guilty to a crime? No? What’s the point of this other than to destroy someone’s life?

    1. A life in the political arena is open to criticize. And isn’t the photograph enough for you?

      1. Perhaps Kathleen imagines the photograph to have been a memento or a souvenir? Maybe that’s Porter meant when he said:

        “I took the photos given to the media nearly 15 years ago and the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described.”

        ‘[T]he reality behind’ them is a most curious choice of words. If the black-eye was the result of an accident, then why use such language as ‘the reality behind them’ to allude to an accident? Makes no sense. Imagine what people will read into that allusion.

          1. Paul, that’s what the logicians call a complex question. The classic example being: So tell me; when did you stop beating your wife? Mr. Porter’s choice of words is bizarre in the extreme. Why use those words to deny an accident? Because! Porter is trying to insinuate that he and his wife enjoyed having “rough sex.” That’s why he chose the words “the reality behind [the photos he took] is nowhere close to what is being described,” to deny his ex-wife’s allegation of physical abuse. It’s not like you to overlook such possibilities, Schulteacher; unless, of course, you don’t want those possibilities to be mentioned.

            1. Diane – my mind did not go there, but yours sure did. Still, why the photo?

              1. Porter says he took the photo. You believe him. I don’t. You figure out why you think he took the photo. For insurance purposes? Because the black-eye was caused by an accident? Was a lawsuit filed? It was fifteen years ago. You figure it out. I don’t believe that he did take that picture.

                1. Diane – first, you think it was the result of rough sex, now you don’t think he took the picture. At this point, I will take him at his word and think he has a couple of bitter ex-wives. Scorned women, they can be vicious.

                  For the sake of argument, let us assume he is telling the truth and he took the photo. Why did he take the photo? And his answer is a little cryptic.

                2. P. S. [Sarcasm alert] Suppose that Porter and his first wife did have a kinky sex life and things got out of hand. Or Rob didn’t hear nor heed the safe word or something. Would that help his case any? I don’t think so. But it might explain the photograph on the memento/souvenir theory. It’s so unfair that she would turn it against him like this.

                  I do not condone that sort of thing. But DSS, SOT, AAWG, TSFS et al hasn’t posted here since before the Alabama special election for Senate. And Roscoe misses DSS as much as I do but for a different reason. Somebody has to read the dark side into things until DSS et al returns. So there.

                    1. Johnny Unitas All formerly Roscoe P Coltrane. He announced the name change at least a week or so ago. Before Comey gave up Reinhold Neibuhr. Earl Morrall Relativist is still available, if your interested.

                  1. “Somebody has to read the dark side into things until DSS et al returns.”

                    But at least DDS was mostly factual. You are a creator of fiction.

    2. Absolutely Kathleen. We should work overtime to insulate weak men who punch their wives in the eye. Their careers are important. They should not be judged on one…or two…or three little missteps in judgment.

      And apparently people like you will ooze out from under a rock to defend these martyrs…these heroes.

      Honest to Fing god…who makes people like you?

      I know…here is why you defend the indefensible: YOU HAVE AN OBVIOUS PERSONALITY DISORDER.

      We know a lot about authoritarian followers, but unfortunately most of what we know indicates it will be almost impossible to change their minds…. Here are a dozen things established by research.

      They are highly ethnocentric, highly inclined to see the world as their in-group versus everyone else. Because they are so committed to their in-group, they are very zealous in its cause.

      They are highly fearful of a dangerous world. Their parents taught them, more than parents usually do, that the world is dangerous. They may also be genetically predisposed to experiencing stronger fear than most people do.

      They are highly self-righteous. They believe they are the “good people” and this unlocks a lot of hostile impulses against those they consider bad.

      They are aggressive. Given the chance to attack someone with the approval of an authority, they will lower the boom.

      They are highly prejudiced against racial and ethnic majorities, non-heterosexuals, and women in general.
      Their beliefs are a mass of contradictions. They have highly compartmentalized minds, in which opposite beliefs exist side-by-side in adjacent boxes. As a result, their thinking is full of double-standards.

      They reason poorly. If they like the conclusion of an argument, they don’t pay much attention to whether the evidence is valid or the argument is consistent.

      They are highly dogmatic. Because they have gotten their beliefs mainly from the authorities in their lives, rather than think things out for themselves, they have no real defense when facts or events indicate they are wrong. So they just dig in their heels and refuse to change.

      They are very dependent on social reinforcement of their beliefs. They think they are right because almost everyone they know, almost every news broadcast they see, almost every radio commentator they listen to, tells them they are. That is, they screen out the sources that will suggest that they are wrong.

      Because they severely limit their exposure to different people and ideas, they vastly overestimate the extent to which other people agree with them. And thinking they are “the moral majority” supports their attacks on the “evil minorities” they see in the country.

      They are easily duped by manipulators who pretend to espouse their causes when all the con-artists really want is personal gain.

      They are largely blind to themselves. They have little self-understanding and insight into why they think and do what they do.
      –Dr. Bob Altemeyer

      1. Darrin Rychlak – this would be research from the same people that thought homosexuality was a disease and could be cured?

      2. Darrin – btw, you are projecting. It is so obvious even I with a psychology minor picked it up.

      3. A direct hit amidship on the gullible dupes who prattle here daily. Nice job finding the objective diagnosis.

        1. The above is to darrin’s laser-like accurate description of the mentals who populate our version of bedlam.

  2. The double standard that activist women demand has grown into a critical mass for which there is no recovery from the monumental damage it has already done to all members of the female gender. They want sex as a deal-maker to seal any deal they want in any facet of their lives, as evidenced by the way they now dress, be it for a professional career, while out in public or even church on Sunday. There’s no downside whatsoever for their demands.

    But when men use power as a deal-maker to seal their deals with women, then it’s “lose your job,” pay through the nose, or a felony.

    The women’s movement eventually led to outlawing men buying sex while women retained using sex for anything and everything their hearts desired, the hypocrisy so culturally ingrained and normalized it cannot even be seen by both women and men alike.

    Why is it legal for one person to use sex as legal tender to obtain power while at the same time it’s illegal for another person to use power as legal tender for sex?

    Of course, none of this will ever end until women’s feet are held to the fire until they quit the double standard bulls**t and demonization of men. Along the way society must trade in its gender awareness for gender blindness.

    1. Hear hear! The monthly meeting of the he-man woman-haters club will now come to order! So, tell me club president, where do male gigolos fit in this scheme? Are they using sex to get power; power to get sex; deal-maker to get demonization; double-standard to get hypocrisy; or, downside to get legal tender?

    1. David, from your typical yup you are becoming bold asking a woman where she wears her Derringer.

    2. I don’t have a Derringer. Yet. I have a 5 shot 38 that I keep in my purse. And a Smith and Wesson HRT Tactical Knife that I keep in my right boot/shoe. I do have a smaller MTech USA MT 20-14 that I keep secreted either in my left boot/shoe or on my person if I am wearing heels or flats or something that the knives will not fit in.

      But, I have thought about getting a Derringer, but you only get one or two shots out of them. True, they are small, but I don’t go anywhere without my purse, and if I am in a questionable parking lot, I keep one hand in my purse as I walk back and forth to the vehicle.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. I might offer some caution on derringers that most aren’t aware. They are extraordinarily loud even with small calibers. A .22 mag version is earsplitting. The last thing you want is to have tinnitus.

        1. That is a good thing to know. I just looked up some Derringers, and they have some that are 45s! And 410s! My goodness! I have to wear ear protection to shoot my 357, and it has a long barrel on it. I can just imagine how loud a little short barrel gun must be.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

  3. Swing and a miss!

    Any little leaguer out there knows the basic advice given to them by the coach or manager before they to up to bat: Keep your eye on the ball.

    Sorry, but this soap opera is designed to distract attention away from issues that effect all of us. Full stop.
    And I’m sorry that Turley has allowed himself to get sucked into this.

    And Turley’s theory — implying guilt per failure to sue — is ABSURD. It probably applies to the goofy nonsense of Roy Moore, but it’s not a universally applicable axiom. There are LOTS of reasons to not want to become involved in a civil law suit. One is the basic principle of simply wanting to get on with your life and not have you life put on hold (very expensive hold) for years while dealing with lawyers (you might read “lawyers” as a-holes) that have taken over control of your life.
    Another reason to avoid civil litigation is the tremendous invasion of privacy that ensues — and it’s pretty clear that that’s what the allegations against Porter were aimed at — dragging the guy’s dirty laundry out into public — and filing a civil law suit only helps the people whose goal was to do just that.

    There are too many other reasons to list here.

    Keep your eye on the ball, Turley. I’m amazed that you’ve allowed to get faked out by this nonsense. The story is the largest corruption/sedition plot ever to happen in the history of the US, and you’re dragging it down to the level of divorce court.

    1. Plus, as I have pointed out before, to sue somebody, an ethical lawyer needs to think there is some chance of success. How can any lawyer advise that when the issue is he said-she said that happened in 2002??? That’s almost as bad as thinking Moore could have done that for stuff that happened in the 1970s. How do you meet your burden??? Like Bill Clinton advised Monica, “who can prove what went on behind closed doors? If we both say nothing happened, then nothing happened.” And he would have been right except for the tapes, and the Blue Dress.

      Theoretically it is doable thru testimony, but the Defense is going to pop out their testimony. The photograph is evidence, but how much weight does it have without knowing how she got it. Relying on pattern evidence is going to be difficult, because wife#2 says that he talked mean to her. Sorry, but wife#1 says he beat her, and there is a world of difference between those two types of activity.

      A defamation suit might be lucrative if you have clients who have money to toss around, but outside of that, it simply ain’t practical in situations like these.

      This article reads more like one of his assistants, who has not yet practiced law in the real world, and thinks a lawsuit solves all problems.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Bull’s eye.

        I’d add that, from my own experience, there IS (or can be) a way to get to the truth in he-said/she-said situations, but it involves interrogation that has to be handled properly — interrogation by someone so intimately familiar with the facts of the case that the a lie, or a half-truth, or an evasion that comes out during questioning can be immediately recognized by the questioner during the questioning.

        Lawyers, however, aren’t intimately familiar with the facts — not all of them. As intelligent and dedicated as an attorney may be (and I’m talking about the .5% that are both honest, dedicated, and intelligent), they didn’t live the facts of the case. The facts are only something they read about — added to which they don’t know with certainty that the facts they’ve been presented are accurate. The client, however, does know the facts of the case, including facts that might not have come up yet. It’s a situation where the interrogation is best conducted by the client, assuming the client has the necessary language skills and strategic capabilities.

        Yes — listen carefully and you can hear any lawyers reading what I just wrote thinking pro se representation is foolish (or at least that’s the narrative spun by lawyers). But it’s actually the client that’s in the best position to get to the truth during questioning, notwithstanding whether he or she is the best one to present the overall case.

        But that isn’t for everyone. Even having the skills I mentioned doesn’t automatically translate into having a taste for that sort of thing.

        But you CAN get to the truth — IF getting to the truth is of overriding importance compared with just getting on with your life — under which circumstance one probably wouldn’t mind spending years in court.

        But Turley’s inference and implication that failure to sue = guilt is ridiculous.

        1. Penelope has a technique for this, too. She commits the sin of asking a question that she does not know the answer to, that also assumes facts not in evidence, but which she has an instinct for. Like one time, without any indication that a child had been slapped, she asked the dude, “But you slapped Little Otto’s face, and it left a hand print didn’t it?”

          Because she knew if he had done some of the other stuff, then he would have also slapped the kid. She says that when you do things like that, even if you don’t get a “Yes”, it can unnerve the witness because they are wondering how she knew that when it has never been brought up. She says you have to be a little careful of that because there are some ethical lines you are not supposed to cross.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

              1. It’s surprising that you would have to ask her now, when you might have clarified matters, at the time. But we are talking about ethics, so I retract that. (By the by, sometimes too much detail gives away the lie. But you do like to chatter.)

            1. I asked her a few minutes ago, and she said that a lawyer is not supposed to ask questions that they do not think can be supported by any admissible evidence, or that would smear the witness without any good faith basis that the smear is supportable. She said an example would be in a rape case, where if the Defendant got on the stand, the Prosecutor asked, without any good faith basis whatsoever, “In fact, you not only raped Poor Mary Jones, but you are also the notorious serial rapist known as “Jolly Roger”, aren’t you???”

              She said that would get a mistrial, and result in suspension, or other sanctions against the lawyer.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

        2. “But Turley’s inference and implication that failure to sue = guilt is ridiculous.”

          On target analysis. I think, however smart Turley is, at times he is naive.

          1. Maybe Turley sometimes thinks too much like an attorney, and forgets that there are other perspectives, equally valid.

            It’s not surprising that a lawyer might fail to consider how distasteful engaging in litigation is to some people — although one would assume that lawyers are aware of why even innocent people sometimes plead No Contest.

            I didn’t mind his criticisms of Roy Moore for not suing — since Moore said he would, and made a big deal out of saying it. But I haven’t read where Porter spouted off about suing people. Maybe I missed that (it’s not at the top of my lists of interests). All I read was his statement that the information presented in the media isn’t accurate.

            That’s NOT an announcement of intent to sue, and therefore not a valid reason to suggest that he’s guilty because he hasn’t filed a law suit.

            1. I think if Turley had to put up the money to sue he would think a bit differently about suits that are unlikely to produce big wins.

    2. Mueller’s on top of the “largest corruption/sedition plot ever.” Those that through avarice, ignorance, negligence or treason would sell out and betray our country to the Russians will face Lady Justice in all her furious majesty.

      this is to “get yer popcorn ready” willie

        1. He/she/it is also a belligerent fool. Anyone that knows me knows that I answer to Bill, William, Mr. Bayer, or Drop The Shovel, Bill, You’re Under Arrest. Anyone that calls me anything else isn’t talking to me.

          1. Haha. Right, There’s an old saying that goes: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” Now, who “knows” you. Pro tip: then don’t answer.

            this is to “my real name is on my mailbox too, I promise” willie

            1. On Disqus, facebook (USA Today, Politico, National Review), New York Times, WaPo, Turley’s anonymous comment mechanism, litigation filings, and elsewhere, comments, motions, and briefs posted and filed by William Bayer dating back many years are mine, posted under my given name — compared to a coward-hiding-behind-an-initial such as you. You aren’t even a comment poster. You’re an infestation.

              1. William Bayer – Marky Mark Mark’s firm only allows him to fill out the paperwork for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

                1. That would be wise of them. From what I’ve seen he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in court. No judge — not even a corrupt one — would tolerate his behavior for even ten minutes.

                  By the way — I read yesterday a comment or reply of yours about the New Hampshire Ph.D. that didn’t know Australia was a country — and still didn’t know it after a student explained — where you mentioned taking tests with your students. Was that a hypothetical or are/were you a prof? Earlier you mentioned about being a director, so it makes me curious as to what subject(s) you taught (if the comment/reply wasn’t a hypothetical).

                  1. William Bayer – I have 3 majors and 2 minors which allows me to teach anything but math and science. I have taught K-14. And a variety of classes, 3 new classes each quarter. 3 new preps.

                    1. Thanks for sharing that. Was I right that I noticed that you mentioned something about directing — I guess a school play? That must be a blast. I’m thinking of Spanky from the Little Rascals doing Marc Antony’s “Friends, Romans, etc.” speech from Julius Caesar while having to duck behind his shield from peas being shot at him with pea-shooters. And Buckwheat playing Juliet to Alfalfa’s Romeo: “O Homeo, Homeo! Wherefore art thou Homeo.”

                      And I guess “K-14” means kindergarten through 14th grade? ? ? ? Where I come from, high school stopped at 12. Fourteen would be a sophomore in college. Obviously I don’t understand your language. My sister teaches deaf children in San Diego, but I’ve not talked to her in 40 years, and other than teachers I’ve had, I’ve only known one other person that studied education, so it’s not something about which I know anything.

                    2. William Bayer – I have directed school plays, college plays, community plays, and children’s’ plays.

              2. Excellent. At least you’ve been more creative than the other mouth-breathing droolers, klan-lite wannabees, paranoid conspiracy-mongers and gullible rubes. Plus one for the “infestation.” Keep up the good work.

                This is to “even my dog posts under his legal, given name” willie

    3. William Bayer said, “Keep your eye on the ball, Turley. I’m amazed that you’ve allowed to get faked out by this nonsense.”

      Turley is the pitcher–not the batter, Bayer. Your complaint is meaningless.

      1. These T rumpers are cool with other T rumpers wife beatin and sexual assaultin. Crimes against ladies have no substance if their tribe committed them.

        1. Ken, I strongly suspect that you’re right about that. Mark M. described it as a club. He’s probably right, too. Rychlak says they’re all hooked on authority. Could it be? Shall one suppose?

          P. S. The social dominance theory of animal behavior applies only to human animals and not to any non-human animals. Except possibly for Baboons, Mandrills and Gorillas. I’m not so sure about Chimpanzees. What do you think?

        2. I guess that means we are cool with your activities in the barnyard. Go now, I hear the ducks are getting excited.

      2. I like your last sentence. Quoting me like that would be flattering, if it weren’t coming from you. Please do not become obsessed with me. I know I have that effect on some people. I won’t do you any good. Actually, nothing you contribute to the pages is serving you well, assuming you’re on the same quest as the rest of us to secure life and liberty so that we can pursue happiness.
        You are not a happy person — and it shows.

        1. I enjoy every second of my time on the blawg. However, there are a good many other things in life besides this blawg that make me far happier still. You seem to have a problem with over-reaching in your conclusions, Bayer. I’m beginning to suspect that you may not be quite so happy as your harsh negative criticism of other posters ought more properly to make you. But I will refrain from labeling Bayer sad.

          1. “However, there are a good many other things in life besides this blawg that make me far happier still. ”

            Diane, I’ll bet some of your happiest moments were when Hillary Clinton destroyed the woman her husband raped.

  4. So here we have Porter who loses his job over spousal abuse. Done at his house.

    We have Peter Strockz FBI agent who conspired to bring a faulty dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on another campaign—He abused his duties as a law enforcement agent, used government facilities to commit crimes, subversion, treason, lying, AND HE STILL HAS HIS JOB.

    We have Lisa Page DOJ Lawyer, Bruce Ohr, DOJ Administrator whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, FBI agent Andrew McCabe—we have ALL sorts of government officials that worked on government equipement, government paid time, to engage in spying on another American, use the FISA warrant system to spy on a campaign–they all have their pensions and jobs—and Porter gets fired. The Mainstream media doesn’t talk about this at all but it is Porter 24/7.

    America is a 3-ring circus and everybody involved is a sixth-grader. I’m witnessing infantile behavior by the likes of Anderson Cooper and Morning Joe and the rest of the Mainstream Media convulsed with Porter’s spousal abuse, and they couldn’t care less of the suborning an election by using government warrants and technology to spy on Americans!!!!

    This country is gone. It’s an idiocy. An Idiocracy run by children with their heads cut off. It’s all quite disgusting. Abortion is fine. Legal—but if you dare smack a woman—you lose your job! We are talking about Porter, while Comey, McCabe, Ohr, his wife, Peter Strockz, Lisa Page, all have their jobs and pensions.

    1. Pro tip: When the facts don’t match your theory, change your theory. Maybe, just maybe, all the wackjob wingnuts have been played for the gullible rubes and dupes that Pravda Faux News identified long ago. Maybe, just maybe, there’s no “there” there. All your supposed “evidence” of some sort of nefarious “Deep State” plot to “steal” an election and instigate a commie/socialist worker’s paradise is nothing more than a fantasy, endlessly and breathlessly passed along by hannity, rush and the loners wearing disguises at the tinfoil hat convention. I hate to tell you this too; but, there is no Santa Claus.

      this is to “I’ve got something to tell you, and it’s going to make you very sad” lindsay

      1. Mark M., as I’m sure you know, when a wife-beater professes his innocence, even in the face of photographic evidence to the contrary, what he really means is that he thinks he had a right to do it and that, therefore, neither his wife nor the State has any right to file a complaint nor any criminal charge against that wife-beater. This supposed right of the husband to slap his chattel silly is but one more reason that they all worship at the feet of Don Juan di Mar-a-Lago, whose goon-boy lawyers imposed a gag order on his first wife, Ivana, as a condition of her divorce settlement, preventing her from ever uttering in public simple God’s-honest truth about Trump and what he did to her.

        P. S. They are nothing if not clubbish.

  5. What is the greater crime? Abortion or spousal abuse? The Greater crime is Abortion. Let’s turn the tables. If the logic of Feminism demands the firing of anybody that abused their wife/girlfriend, then the same logic holds that any freakin’ woman that has had an abortion MUST LEAVE Government service at once! All the female employees of the gov and the military that had an abortion, that has torn or burned a fetus to death, be fired.

    That Is how this situation needs to be handled and fairly. Do unto others as you wish to be done unto you. If you commit a sin against a woman, you must lose your job—then any woman that has harmed her fetus, needs to lose her job!

    1. Uh, I don’t know how to tell you this; but that ship has sailed. Women’s bodies will no longer be owned by their nearest male relative.

      this is to “silly rabbit, birth control is legal now” lindsay

    2. Colonel Bat Guano said, “All the female employees of the gov and the military that had an abortion, that has torn or burned a fetus to death, [should] be fired.”

      The government is strictly forbidden from posing to any woman the question, “have you ever had an abortion?” That is so because every citizen under the Constitution has a right to be secure in his or her person and possessions from unwarranted searches and seizures.

      P. S. The government cannot fire its employees for acts which that same government holds to be legal. For instance, you remain free to speak of “logic” despite the fact that you do not personally possess it.

  6. Relative to the WH blaming Hope Hicks for the botched PR response- any woman who doesn’t know that Republican men (Chris Christie, Gen.Kelley, Trump) throw women under the bus at the first opportunity, is a stupid fool.

    1. I have to wonder now if Ms. Hicks ever had to wear her sunglasses while working inside the White House.

      1. Hope does go for da bad boys. Her momma needs to get an intervention goin and get her out of da house of debauchery.

        1. I’ll never understand the appeal of bad boys. It conjures day dreams of castration in my mind. Oops. That’s too much information. Shame on me for sharing.

        2. Respectfully….. referring to men who batter and choke people weaker than they are as “bad boys,” places them in the wrong category. Sandra Bullock’s former husband was described as a bad boy but, never of violence against women. Instead, the description was applied to him because of his womanizing, motorcycles, tattoos, hardened friends, lying, etc.

          1. Agreed, Linda. Some things out not to be euphemized. Violence against women is one of those things.

            1. Diane, women’s ‘violence’ and character assassination against other women that complained of rape should not be tolerated. Hillary Clinton is an example of such a woman that should not be tolerated. She tolerated her husband’s abuse of woman and rape, she assassinated the victim’s character, she supported those that made women into second class citizens where stoning them to death was a regular occurrence. She is your type of woman.

  7. Unless he’s beating the crap out of people at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – who really cares?

    This outrage machine over the private lives of Americans needs to stop.

    Every Saint has a past and every sinner has a future………..

    1. Quite simply: it goes to character. It makes me sad that someone (me) should have to explain this to you.

      1. And, Gen. Kelley’s character in calling Porter honorable when he had to have known, the ex-wives’ statements resulted in the denial of a security pass for Porter.

        1. People have to separate personal lives from jobs. Patton slapped a soldier and ended up out of the war for a year and when placed back in Europe he was far away from Berlin. He was Shermanesque so if he had been placed closest to the front the war might have ended a year or so earlier.

          I’m interested in our economy and our strength. I don’t want the country run by people that permit fires to glow all over the world.

          1. Rob Porter is no Patton. And Allan knows it. And Allan doesn’t care about knowingly proffering an incredibly weak analogy between Rob Porter versus Patton; between shortening WWII versus growing the US economy; between allowing a wife-beater access to classified information versus permitting fires to glow all over the world (to whatever that alludes).

              1. Linda, This statement of yours comes from a person who can only provide sound bites but can almost never respond to any questions. Character assassination is your forte and you do it poorly.

            1. Such stupidity. I demonstrated a need to sometimes separate the personal lives of people from their official duties especially when we really do not know the full story. According to people like you, the golden shower claim was enough to destroy a Presidency even though the story was completely made up. This is the type of attitude that destroys nations and families. But what do you care? You just like to mix words together that have no substance and to me, that is a pretty stupid way of discussing serious subjects.

              1. Allan said, “I don’t want the country run by people that permit fires to glow all over the world.”

                Allan also said, “According to people like you, the golden shower claim was enough to destroy a Presidency even though the story was completely made up. This is the type of attitude that destroys nations and families.”

                Trump is still POTUS, Allan. Neither The United States nor the Trump family has been destroyed. Get a grip. People like Putin and his cronies at The Kremlin are the ones who made up the Russian prostitutes urinating on the bed story. You falsely attribute that obvious disinformation to people like me because you are genuinely concerned that the remaining allegations in the dossier cannot be, and have not been, so easily refuted as the Russian prostitutes urinating on the bed story.

                If that’s all you’ve got, Allan, then your hysterical overreaction to the Rob Porter wife-beating charge is oddly consistent with your hysterical overreaction to “the golden shower claim” preventing a Presidency, a family and a nation from putting out “fires [that] glow all over the world.” After all, no matter how many Russian prostitutes anyone hires to urinate all over the world, they couldn’t possibly extinguish that many glowing fires quite so well as a few more wife-beating White House staffers could.

                Caveat loquitur.

                1. “Trump is still POTUS ”

                  That is right because the illegal and illegitmate attempts to both prevent Trump from gaining the Presidency and removing him once he was President failed. Stupid people that didn’t believe in the Constitution were unable to subvert it.

                  “The Kremlin are the ones who made up the Russian prostitutes urinating on the bed story. ”

                  …And more and more it seems totally true that Hillary Clinton and the DNC funded that action and tried to hide it by having numerous intermediaries that included their lawyer.

                  “You falsely attribute that obvious disinformation to people like me ”

                  I don’t attribute that information to you. You are too stupid and simply act as a mouthpiece of no significance. Anyone that believes highly in your political observations is a fool as well as you have been absolutely wrong too many times. You are impressed with your ability to throw in big words. Those words might have been impressive if what you wrote made sense.

          2. If you apply for a clearance they don’t separate out anything . It is da whole ball of wax for your entire life. If ya come up dirty, you are stamp denied.

            1. That’s almost as good as castration. Oops. There I go again. Pardon my sarong.

            2. You apparently know very little about clearance. Get back to the barnyard and interview some ducks.

      2. Oh—Mike Groesbeck–that Clinton raped women and abused them—and the Demoncrat party protected him? It goes to Clinton’s character! I bet you loved ol’ Willy Clinton didn’t you! He is also a baby killer and advocated baby killing—It goes to character!


        1. Wrong answer. Read Roe and knash your teeth. Women are now in control of their own bodies and birth control.

          this is to “Merica was a better place when the man ruled the roost” lindsay

      3. Ad hominem — adverb & adjective — 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” Oxford online dictionary

        You’re “sad” because you are a sad person with a sad strategy representative of the sad demise of the democrat party.

        1. From the Wikipedia article on Bulverism:

          “Bulverism is a logical fallacy. The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” The Bulverist assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive. The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.

          Similar to Antony Flew’s “subject/motive shift”, Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer’s identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument’s validity or truth.”

          Bayer is bucking for a field promotion to Chief Bulverism Officer. He has a long way to go, though, before Bayer can out-Bulverize the current CBO, Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter who positively excels at explaining to liberals, progressives and democrats how they got to be so silly in the first place. But don’t count Bayer out. A few more months and he might just get there.

          1. Uh, if you can “explain” someone’s error to them, then it is not an “assumption” that they are wrong. Because they are in fact, wrong. The problems come in when Person B can NOT explain why Person A is wrong, and then begins to call Person A names.

            See the Australia thread. The Professor was wrong, and the error was “explained” to them.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. The error is to be explained in the argument–not in the person. Bayer did that with his first sentence defining the argument ad hominem which Mark M. had given in the third sentence of his reply to wlindsaywheeler. But Bayer then committed Bulverism with the second sentence of his reply to Mark M.

              “You’re “sad” because you are a sad person with a sad strategy representative of the sad demise of the democrat party.”

              The ad hominem error was in the argument that Mark M. made–not in the person Mark M., nor in the presumed political affinity of Mark M. for the democratic party. Chances are that Bayer knows that his reply to Mark M. commits the fallacy of Bulverism. I’m not so sure that you’re aware of your own frequent use of Bulverism, Squeeky. Democrats are not wrong because they are democrats. Liberals are not wrong because they are Liberals. Progressives are not wrong because they are progressives. And Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter is not wrong because she is a White nationalist. Do you see the difference?

              1. P. S. Mark M.’s first, second and third sentences were not arguments ad hominem:

                Mark M. said, “”Wrong answer. Read Roe and knash your teeth. Women are now in control of their own bodies and birth control.”

                So Bayer’s Bulverism ignored the perfectly valid portion of Mark M.’s reply to wlindsaywheeler. Bayer’s on notice.

              2. Diane – Democrats are wrong just because they are Democrats. They belong to a party that tried to steal an election. They need to be disbanded and reformed as something else. Right now they don’t have any issues except illegal immigrants before Americans, welfare, and gerrymandering in Republican states. That is not a strong ticket to take into the midterms. At this point, there is the possibility they may lose seats, at best they will break even. Besides, they are nearly bankrupt and the Republicans have $143 million going into the midterms.

                I get to say this because I am a registered Independent of some 40 years and have voted for members of both major parties, including Mickey Mouse as a write-in. I am an outsider looking in and the Democrats are a ship on the rocks. Party members are bailing ship as we speak.

                1. Mark M. did not try to steal any election. One may presume Mark M. to be a Democrat on the basis of his endorsement of Obama as the greatest POTUS since HST. But Mark M. if Schulte claimed that Mark M. was wrong about Obama and Truman because Mark M. belonged to a party that tried to steal an election, then Schulte would be guilty of Bulverism the same as Bayer and Fromm. (I’m beginning to see a German surname pattern emerging).

  8. Do you suppose an investigation of all divorce related TROs of members of congress and the media would be warranted?

    1. Hi PaulCS!!!

      I used vintage percolator #2 this morning and it was great! It is the Farberware one! I only made about 20 ounces, and cut it off when the coffee started swoooshing up thru the glass thingy in a hurry instead of bubble,. . .bubble. . .bubble.

      It is a very solid little machine! Plus, it is sooo cute! I read that it will make about 2 to 6 cups sooo I could put more water in it, I guess.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeeky – other than that, how was the coffee? 😉 I know it is important to have a cute machine but the taste is important, too. 🙂

        1. It was delicious! The coffee tastes different from either auto drip, or press. I have done some pour over coffee, too, in the past. I am tempted to say the perc coffee tastes “better” but that is sooo relative. I mean is there any such thing as bad coffee???

          I am having problems trying to figure how much water to put inside these things. The new one supposedly tells you inside it somewhere, but I didn’t see it. I am just not sure if you should fill the water level above where the inside spout opening is. To make it worse, nobody really knows how much a cup of coffee is in ounces, although I have mostly estimated about 5.5 to 6 ounces.

          Tonite, when I wash out the pot, I think I will pour 6 ounces in at a time to see where it ends up at.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky – yes, there is something called “bad coffee” and they used to serve it at ASU. I think they added battery acid as a filler. You might try YouTube for instructions.

            1. I have looked at a few videos, but I have not seen one yet with how much water to add, or whether or not you go above the inside spout opening. Which the top of spout outside, is about 3 inches above the inside opening. Plus, do you add water above the level of the inside basket, where the perc’ed coffee exfuses out, or do you leave room for it to drip out into the water reservoir.

              These are serious concerns, and I am surprised no one has tackled it. Fear of stuff like this is what keeps me from churning my own butter.


              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Squeeky – the instructions may be online. Try Duck Duck Go and look for the instruction manual

              2. If I remember correctly the old ones had multiple raised small water levels built into the metal on the inside. If you can’t see them you might be able to feel them. They were small.

              3. Squeeky if the answers already provided aren’t good enough then if you provide a short list of questions I will show them to my wife. She always made the coffee in the morning.

                1. Thank you, Allan. I just used the new one to figure it out. It is a 12 cup machine, so I used the carafe from the dripper to pour water into it. The level was above the bottom of the inside spout hole, but not as high as the inside pressure/steam hole. It also seems to be below the level of the inside basket so that the perc can fall onto the water below it, and not have to infuse into it.

                  The inside basket has 8,10,& 12 markings on it, for how much coffee you add to it. Which, I only put in 8 scoops of coffee, and it seems plenty strong. I always figured the coffee companies say 1 scoop per cup because that is more sales for them. On a dripper you may need that much, but the coffee grounds in both French Presses and percs have more contact with the hot water, and so my guess is that extracts more of the coffee from them.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. Treat it like a science experiment until you get the taste you want. The advantage of using actual coffee grounds is that you can choose the coffee bean and the size of the grind, but that involves too many steps for lazy me so I pop in a Nespresso press a button and drink the coffee. No clean up either.

                    Find a Nespresso store (if one exists) near you and sample their coffees. I frequently go by one so I can get a cup or two of coffee there trying out the different varieties. There is no charge nor do they get concerned if you come back again. No need to go to the store and carry boxes of coffee. They mail the pods for free, but they aren’t cheap.

        2. Oh, and plus, it was fast! I turned on the cord at 9:38 and by 9:39 it was percolating! That is less than 2 minutes, I let it perc for another 8 minutes until 9:48, and then turned it off. The coffee was creamy brown in the glass thingy on top.

          For some reason, the new one does not have a glass thingy, but is solid. But, the new one also cuts off automatically.

          You know, older people ought to write books for people in my generation telling them how to do things like perc coffee in vintage percolators before those skills are lost to mankind forever. (Hint, Hint.)

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky – you need to track down a great Sci-Fi novella A Canticle for Liebowitz, I hope I spelled the last name correctly. I do not remember the author but it was in the collection of the best sci-fi before the Hugos and Nebulas started to be awarded. If you can find the two-volume set, it is worth the read. My personal favorite is The Microcosmic God. There is some tremendous writing collected in there, the best of the best.

            1. I have it!!! I bought a copy last year after reading about it online somewhere, There is a Liebowitz Society, and I mean one day to stock up on guitar strings in case of a Zombie Apocalypse. It is still in the stack of 60 books or so by my chair.

              Do you mean this set??? Because my uncle gave me a copy a few years ago, and I love it! Particularly Pillar of Fire by Ray Bradbury.


              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Squeeky – I think it is called The Best of Science Fiction (Red cover, blue trim) and it is almost all short stories, except for the novella. This is probably a great buy, but longer stories. The original was to honor the authors who had written prior to the Hugos and give them a special place together, their own book. Sadly, each author only got one story and that became an issue as to which would be their premier story for the author. Printed only in paperback.

                    1. Oh, they do have it in hardback, and it was less than $6! Oh, there are two sci-fi things that I read when I was a kid from my father’s library. One was Tumithak of the Corridors, which scared the holy crap out of me. Because spiders. Kindle has it for $2.99. The there were some books called Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper, which I bought them for myself a few years ago.

                      You might like them.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                  1. Squeeky – if The Microcosmic God is in there then you have the right volumes. 🙂

      2. That is what I used to have and then when I replaced it the coffee was lousy. How old is that percolator?

        1. I think Vintage Number One is 1940s, and Vintage Number 2 looks 1930s to me, but everybody says it is 1940s. They are very reasonably priced, and Vintage 2 is a heck of a solid piece of work:

          Just go to the link and scroll down a little and you can see all the parts. It is also a beautiful thing!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. I went to the site and that is a beautiful coffee pot. It was marked at $55 and sold so I suppose that sale was to you. Young people generally don’t want these stylish things. Mine was a later model produced long before you were born. You can tell these things by the plug inserted into the pot. I have a toaster with a similar wiring scheme, but probably decades older.

            1. No, actually mine was less than that! By a good amount, You can pick them up for about $35 all over the place. I don’t understand why people don’t want things that are beautiful. Frankly, if I had gotten the vintage one first, I would not have bought the new one.

              I did find an image that better looks like Vintage number 1. The image is a miniature, and mine is bigger. It looks like the manufacturer took some bigger stove top percs, and then added a bottom to them with a heating element.


              But, if I was going to write a story, The Brave Little Percolator, vintage #1 would be the model.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Squeeky, I think my Percolator might have been the 134 produced in 1970. The problem is that the thermostats go bad and that impacts one’s ability to make a good cup of coffee and replacing the thermostat is a lot of work. I like old things and collected a lot of things from the past centuries, though I have things that date much much older. My favorite is my windup oak Victrola. The wood is beautiful and it is rarer than the mahogany one. When I play a record I ask people to adjust the volume and they can’t find the right knob because there isn’t any. To increase the volume one opens the wooden doors on the bottom. A second favorite is a brass fluter. You probably never heard of a fluter (nonmusical), but that is what they used for their cuffs centuries ago. It’s a corrugated two-piece iron. No one has yet been able to identify what it is. I also gave my housekeeper a new energy saving vacuum cleaner that has no batteries or electric cord. It’s a hand pump operated vacuum cleaner. She said, “I Quit”. 🙂

                1. LOL on the vacuum! I think I may get into churning my own butter. Just for kicks and giggles. I think there is a practical side to old things, like when the Zombie Apocalypse hits and the power goes out. Do you have any idea how many people don’t even have a hand operated can opener? I am going to get one of those hand cranked radios, too. And a non-electric percolator for a camp fire.

                  People don’t think that kind of stuff happens, but it has always happened. A super volcano, a big meteor, the sun just dimming. Whooosh, there you are back in the Ice Age. Not to mention massive civil unrest, and financial disasters like in Venezuela.

                  If that does happen, you can charge admission to listen to music on your Victrola! Barter for beans and bacon!

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. “I think I may get into churning my own butter. ”

                    We also have a butter churner.

                    My wife and I have been a bit involved in EMP and getting the grid up to speed for at least a decade since not only can the grid be affected by weapons, but it can be affected by cyclical occurrences on the sun.

        2. Plus, I could not find a picture of Vintage Number 1. This painting comes close to it, except mine has a flaired bottom for the heating stuff, and the body is not tapered, but round and polygonal. I get an image of 1930s from it, but it is also supposed to be 1940s. When I find my camera, I will post a picture of it.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

  9. I think Trump knew and his support is at the bottom of the others supporting Porter

    1. Martha, as usual, why now? Why not when it occurred? When a man hits you, you leave. There are American embassies all over the world. They are there to help Americans when needed. Staying makes it acceptable. Are there any children involved with either of both wives? I hope not or their lives are screwed up.

      1. Sandi Hemming said, “When a man hits you, you leave . . . Staying makes it acceptable.”

        When a man points a gun at you and says, “your money or your life,” Sandi Hemming thinks that giving that armed robber your money makes armed robbery “acceptable.”

          1. But of course Sandi doesn’t think that. Nobody thinks that. Not even the armed robbers think that. And yet . . . the argument by analogy is a strong one. Unless, of course, wife-beating were not a crime.

          2. Diane is a nutcase. She can’t even distinguish the difference between a significant other (husband) and an unknown robber carrying a gun. She believes the relationships are the same.

            I guess that is possible. Her husband could have been an armed robber.

  10. Spousal abuse, infidelity and a whole bunch of other things occur quite frequently in marriages. I am not condoning it, rather recognizing the frequency of such occurrences. This can come as quite a surprise to other people even employers and coworkers and they are right in protecting one’s individual integrity they believe exists until it involves them or is proven to them.

    ““Everyone trusted Rob Porter, believed his side of the story and strongly defended him,” one source close to the White House told the Washington Examiner. “However, once pictures surfaced showing physical evidence of abuse, that’s when they had to condemn the behavior.””?

    Unfortunately, the media wishes to blame co-workers and employers for things beyond their control. That is pure BS, but that is what stupid people like to use to prove they are better than everyone else.

    Before drawing premature conclusions like Turley did in his unnecessary snarky comment, I will wait for a bit more information. Maybe all the neighbors and family members should be skewered because if true they too knew what was happening.

      1. Liberals are too willing to convict anyone that is not within a favored group while at the same time they will give refuge to violent illegal aliens that end up killing other people. Liberals have sick minds when it comes to political opportunism.

      2. OK. I’ll take the bait. I have “negative beliefs” about Trump because he’s a pathological liar, he brags about grabbing women’s genitals, he cheats on his spouses, he expressed admiration for the White Supremacists, he routinely insults heads of foreign countries, he engages in racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric, he has demanded loyalty pledges from agency heads, he behaves like a petulant toddler and has brought respect for the Office of the President to an historic low due to chaos, instability, failure to vet appointees, and the list goes on. Notice that nothing listed has anything to do with politics. Notice also that all of these things are fact-based, not opinions. In your book, this makes me biased?

        1. Yes. Because you are using canards to confirm your bias. For example, “racist, xenophobic” rhetoric. That is a fuzzy thing. You will take what he says, and call him that not because the language proves it, but because the language can be used to confirm your pre-existing belief. For example, take this little test:

          Take the ‘Racist Xenophobe’ Quiz: Who Said This About Illegal Immigration?
          February 9, 2017

          Larry ELDER

          Which alleged “racist xenophobe” made these statements about illegal immigration?

          “Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented (and) unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

          A) Adolf Hitler
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: Then-Sen. Obama, news conference, 2005

          “Our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.”

          A) Joseph Stalin
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Bill Clinton

          Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address, 1995

          “If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering an award to be an illegal immigrant. No sane country would do that, right? Guess again.”

          A) Jack the Ripper
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

          Answer: Reid, Senate floor, 1993

          “In approaching immigration reform, I believe we must enact tough, practical reforms that ensure and promote the legal and orderly entry of immigrants into our country.”

          A) Idi Amin
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: Sen. Obama, Senate floor, 2007

          “We all agree on the need to better secure the border, and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants.”

          A) Pol Pot
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: Sen. Obama, 2005

          “All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

          A) Michael Myers
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Bill Clinton

          Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address, 1995

          “We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace.”

          A) Jeffrey Dahmer
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Bill Clinton

          Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address, 1995

          “I continue to believe that we need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace. And that means a workable mandatory system that employers must use to verify the legality of their workers.”

          A) Kim Jong Un
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: Sen. Obama, Senate floor, 2007

          “If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides — and that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of babies born at taxpayer expense (in) county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”

          A) Kim Kardashian
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Harry Reid

          Answer: Sen. Reid, Senate floor, 1993

          “We need to start by giving agencies charged with border security new technology, new facilities and more people to stop, process and deport illegal immigrants.”

          A) Rasputin
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: Sen. Barack Obama, 2005

          “Right now we’ve got millions of illegal immigrants who live and work here without knowing their identity or background.”

          A) Freddy Krueger
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: Sen. Obama, 2005

          “We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

          A) Vlad the Impaler
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Bill Clinton

          Answer: President Clinton, State of the Union address,1995

          “Let me repeat: We need strong border security at the borders.”

          A) Hassan Nasrallah
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: Barack Obama, 2005

          “If only everyone (in the Middle East) could be like Scandinavians, (achieving peace) would all be easy.”

          A) Al Capone
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Barack Obama

          Answer: President Obama, 2016

          “There are too many (migrants) now. … Europe, for example, Germany, cannot become an Arab country. Germany is Germany. … From a moral point of view, too, I think refugees should only be admitted temporarily.”

          A) Joseph Goebbels
          B) Donald Trump
          C) Dalai Llama

          Answer: Dalai Llama, 2016

          I submit that if Donald Trump had said the thing about Scandanavians, or the comment about 3/4 of the illegal brats in hospitals, that would constitute “proof” that Trump was a racist xenophobe. Yet, that same language from Obama will not trigger that response from you. Am I right? Is Barack Obama a racist, xenophobe to you, now???

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      3. Squeeky said, “The incidence of women lying about this kind of stuff is sufficiently high to warrant waiting for the facts to come in. Which Conservative types will do, while the Liberal types will run around in hysterics claiming this confirms their negative beliefs (aka biases) about Trump.”

        Did the wife give herself a black eye then have someone photograph the evidence of physical abuse? Conservatives wait for the “facts” to come in in the act of denying photographic evidence of physical abuse? Liberals confirm their bias against Trump in the act of accepting photographic evidence of physical abuse?

        Squeeky, you are still the Chief Bulverism Officer of the Turley blawg.

        1. Diane – back in my early dating days, I went to put my arm around the girl I was dating and whacked her in the eye with my elbow. She got a black eye, I felt silly and apologetic. However, other than poor aim had done nothing wrong. 😉

          1. I will gladly concede that accidents happen. But if an accident happens twice. I get suspicious. How ’bout you?

          2. Paul, there is nothing you can do with Diane. She puts a lot of words together, but when you try and summarize what she said there is nothing there. When you demonstrate an alternative reason for the black eye demonstrating one needs proof suddenly instead of providing proof she raises the bar. This is non-ending with her for she will grab onto anything to prove whatever she wishes to prove.

            This whole issue is a joke and stupid. We have a government to run and these idiots will use any excuse to hamper a functioning government unless their own wife beater is in charge.

            1. I didn’t hire Porter. Trump did. I didn’t hire Sorenson either. Trump did. Your functioning government is dysfunctional. Trump is having great difficulty finding very many good people to hire. Just look at how many people Trump has fired, already. I didn’t fire any of those people anymore than I had hired any of them. Moreover, you’re the one who wants your own Wife-Beater-In-Chief. And you’ve got it. Content yourself with the gratification of your own desire; why don’t you?

              1. “I didn’t hire Porter.”

                Of course, you didn’t. That requires ability.

                Statistically, we don’t know what President had the most criminals (though that could be Obama), abusers of women (though that could be Bill Clinton) or liars (though that could be Hillary Clinton) living or acting for the White House.

                Intelligent people recognize that among all men and woman there are faults. Sometimes those faults rise to a level that cannot be tolerated and sometimes they do not. Obama’s choices seemed to break the law and didn’t abide by the Constitution along with their own infidelities. Hillary Clinton practiced character assassination against the women her husband raped. I think your morals and ethics are quite low and though I don’t like wife beaters or even infidelity I find your selective ramblings to lack class and represent the lowest form of intellectual debate.

    1. Just one observation: The protective order cited and shown in the news media was a Virginia “Emergency Protective Order.” It is an order issued by a police officer at the time of any (alleged) incident of “family abuse” (as it is known in Virginia). It is issued based upon probable cause — that is, somebody told or showed the officer something that, if true, would support a reasonable likelihood that family abuse might have taken place. It expires after three days or at the end of the next day when the Juvenile and Domestic Relations General District Court is open. The idea is to keep the alleged abuser away while the alleged victim has time to decide whether to proceed in court. (Apparently, the ex-wife in question did not do so, for some reason.) The next step would be to go to court to get a preliminary protective order based upon ex parte sworn testimony or affidavits. A preliminary protective order is good for a maximum of 15 days. Before the 15 days expires, the court will hold a hearing at which both the petitioner and the respondent may present evidence. Only after that hearing will a court issue a permanent protective order, based upon a preponderance of the evidence.

      Porter may well be an abuser, but the issuance of an emergency protective order proves only that a police officer was told by someone that Porter had engaged in family abuse — there were no further proceedings and there was no finding of abuse by a court.

      1. “at the time of any (alleged) incident of “family abuse”

        Porter may well be an abuser, but the issuance of an emergency protective order proves only that a police officer was told by someone that Porter had engaged in family abuse”

        Porkchop, I think your use of the word “alleged” is quite appropriate.

  11. Bill Clinton as enabled by Hillary Clinton

    1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault

    2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault

    3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault

    4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault

    5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape

    6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault

    7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear

    8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear

    9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment

    10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault

    11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault

    12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault

    1. And Bill got elected, twice! There is a different set of rules by Democrats (who control our media). Republicans are held to a higher standard. Why?

      1. Why, Sandi? The times they are a-changing. Don’t you think that is for the good? Bill Clinton would not get away with that stuff today.

      2. T rump sssaulted 30 women and did threesomes with pornos. He is still sittin in da executive office. When is his trial? Never

        1. That is your fiction Ken, but you do what you accuse others of only yours is done in the barnyard. Baaah.

      3. You are on to something, by George! You have rightfully detected that Pravda Faux News is under the bitter thumb of this nefarious Soros character, the DNC and HRC! Man the barricades!

        this is to “it’s a vast, left-wing conspiracy, I tell ya” sandi


    He says the White House was like a battlefield for the Clintons — and the president showed up one morning with a black eye to prove it.

    “He had a black eye and you could see they were trying to conceal it with makeup. After he went into the Oval Office, they said: ‘What is that mark on the presidents eye?’ His assistant said he was allergic to coffee,” he recalled.

    Byrne said that as first lady, Hillary actually hit a Secret Service agent in the back of the head with a Bible.

    “She became angry and she had a Bible in her hand. She didn’t actually throw it at him. He described it to me as she leaned forward and hit him in the head with it,” he said.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  13. Up to this point nobody even knew who this guy was. So now let’s attack Gen Kelly and Hope Hicks because it’s an attack against President Trump. He’s been bounced out so let’s see what his x’s plan to do. Guaranteed nothing.
    The msm will place more coverage on this guy then the two lovers in the FBI who tried to topple our President.

    1. What do you think the exes would do? They’re not the ones who went after his job. The FBI came to them as part of his security clearance background check (which he couldn’t pass).

      1. Yea right. To bad the FBI didn’t go after Stozck, Page and the Ohrs too. Oh that’s right they’re still there aren’t they.

      2. These idiots here don’t even know that they interview exes for a security clearance.

    1. He says he took the picture of his wife with the black eye. There’s the police report and interviews with the FBI from his two exes, (plus the unknown third person who came forward months ago to White House Counsel Don Meghan.

      Of course, his story will wipe all that away.

      Out of curiosity, did you wait for Harvey Weinstein’s side of things to come out?

      1. No. I didn’t wait for Weinstein’s side. Can you figure out why??? I do have my reasons, you know. Any guess as to what they are???

        I also didn’t wait for Bill Cosby’s side to come out, and I support him, not the 50 or so women. Any ideas why?

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. If you are still believing Trump after 19 or so accusations/ I don’t see the difference. By the way, I do believe the women’s charges against Weinstein, Cosby, Moore, and Trump. The numbers are overwhelming.

          1. “I do believe the women’s charges against Weinstein, Cosby, Moore, and Trump.”

            Of course you do.

                1. I read those, you coming from the legal profession, is there anything legally relevant there? Cosby has admitted to drugging many of the women, most either without their knowledge either that they were being drugged or knowing what they were being given and its effects. I guess supporting Trump means you have to consider any other ridiculous defense from someone else.

                  1. Anything legally relevant??? Did you ever hear of someone called, O.J. Simpson???

                    As far as Cosby having to drug those chicks, R.O. Chester is on the right track. If you are a woman, ans you go to some guy’s hotel room, or house, late at night, you are agreeable to having sex. Period.

                    My sisterhood will drop their britches at a moment’s notice for some guy they meet in the bar, who has a nice car and will buy their drinks. Where the man has money and power, the bloomers come off even faster.

                    Nobody really has to rufie or lude most of them into it.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. So of the 60 plus accusers against Cosby, they’re all lying? I don’t know that he had to drug those women or that some of them might not have had consensual sex with him> I do believe if you wake up with someone on top of you, there wasn’t really a choice.

                    2. Squeeky – it is possible with Cosby that they took the panties off in the bathroom of the bar and put them in their purse. No sense wasting time. 😉

                    3. Enigma, if you believe women, without question, then you have a problem. Women lie. All women. Except me. How many hook-ups do you think a playa like Cosby had over the years? I am betting one a week, so 60 of them start running toward the sound of the money? Not surprised at all.

                      PaulCS, I would not put it past them. Women are manipulative, and they chase men with money like white on rice. And country boys:


                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    4. Squeeky – who was the NBA playa who claimed to have banged 10,000 women?

                  2. “Cosby has admitted to drugging many of the women, most either without their knowledge either that they were being drugged or knowing what they were being given and its effects.”

                    As of 2015 CNN and the deposition:

                    “”Did you ever give any of those young women the Quaaludes without their knowledge?” Troiani asked.
                    Cosby’s attorney objected and told him not to answer the question.”

                    This quoted statement again taints Enigma’s objectivity and truthfulness unless he has a later statement. It appears he stretches the truth to meet his desired beliefs. In other words, in Enigma’s world, the belief creates the fact rather than the fact creating the belief.

                    1. “Do you think that’s the only time he addressed his drugging women? The amount of information of which you’re unaware is astounding. Super Troll!”

                      Enigma these statement made by Cosby etc. were at a deposition where the words are accurately quoted. Did he have a later deposition? Since you know for a fact (an Enigma fact which means it likely isn’t true) that other statements exist prove it just like I did by providing a portion of the deposition.

                      [*** in Enigma’s world, the belief creates the fact rather than the fact creating the belief.]

                    2. Enigma, you can’t see the truth if it hits you in the head. Quote what in the article disputes this sworn testimony.

                      “”Did you ever give any of those young women the Quaaludes without their knowledge?” Troiani asked.
                      Cosby’s attorney objected and told him not to answer the question.”

                      [***in Enigma’s world, the belief creates the fact rather than the fact creating the belief.]

                    3. Why don’t you quote the passage along with the citation so we have everything in one place? Then we can compare your quotation to the deposition which is a record of the exact words stated.

                      You like paraphrasing because it is inexact and can be altered to your liking. I provided you with quotes from the deposition which is opposite to what you are trying to say. I am not trying to defend Cosby because his actions are contrary to my lifestyle and beliefs. I believe in the truth. I probably would be happier if you could prove me wrong, but that is highly unlikely unless there was a later deposition released to the public and I don’t think that happened.

                    4. Enigma, I can’t find what doesn’t exist and apparently, you can’t find it either. You are the one that says it exists so show it!

                      You can’t, and do you know why? Because the facts don’t provide your conclusions and you would rather deal with spurious accusations than the truth.

                    5. Enigma, I read it, but what you say doesn’t exist. I read the article from 1927 about Fred Trump and it didn’t say what you said it said either. In fact, much of what you say has been distorted to meet your expectations.

                      Now, you have the opportunity to prove that 2015 deposition statement was revised. Go ahead and quote from Vanity Fair to do so otherwise your word and intellectual honesty is worth sh-t.

                    6. I will spend zero percent of my life proving things to you that you won’t acknowledge. It’s time I’ll never get back. Continue trolling all you like for you’re a very small person, full of attacks and insults and unable to have a civil discussion. You know longer exist to me. Goodbye!

                    7. “I will spend zero percent of my life proving things to you that you won’t acknowledge.”

                      Instead, Enigma, you will write email after email trying to prove your libelous behavior with citations supposedly read by you that you think proves your case. However, will you spend 1/20th the time providing the quotation of a sentence or two? No. Why? Because it doesn’t exist in the real world. The proof only exists in your mind.

                      That is your nature Enigma. Libel people that hold ideas you don’t like and blame them for your presumed problems.

                    8. Enigma

                      Uh, have you been to a party lately with people in their 20s and 30s. People take all kinds of pills without knowing what they are. Lots of times, people think they are Ecstasy, but who knows??? I imagine things were worse back last century.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

            1. InLegal, Enigma believes Trump is a racist because in 1927 Fred Trump at 21 years of age might have been at a rally and might have been arrested and then released as an innocent bystander in the vicinity of a KKK march where there were protesters on all sides. From that Enigma concludes Fred Trump was a racist and therefore his son had to be a racist as well. His proof was the 1927 article which upon review said nothing about racism.

              [The 1924 Democratic convention was known as the Klanbake because of the KKK’s influence and Enigma appears to be a strong Democrat.]

              Because of his history, Enigma feels he neither requires facts nor truth when drawing his conclusions.

          2. “By the way, I do believe the women’s charges against Weinstein, Cosby, Moore, and Trump. The numbers are overwhelming.”

            I believe Anita Hill too.

      2. enigma – speaking of Weinstein, did you seen Rose McGowan’s former agent committed suicide yesterday at age 50?

        1. I hadn’t heard but just read up on it a bit, including her family’s opinion. I haven’t drawn any conclusions about that, perhaps after more information, I will?

          1. I know you mean well, enigma, but there’s a school of thought that “crazy gonna do crazy.” And, that when you entertain the inane prattle of crazy, it somewhat legitimates that inane prattle. If you step back away from the bedlam here for a second and put on your rational, open-minded, normal people hat; and just read some of the utter, unmitigated nonsense posted here as if it were something that logical people could subscribe to, its clear that there’s nothing you, I, Natacha or Jesus Christ himself could say to these people which would dispel the zany, rambling, discombobulated, paranoid, and unknowing nonsense that rattles around in their heads.

            1. That’s obviously true, Mark M. But it’s still our lot in life to wrangle with the Red Pill Brigade for the sake of our country. If we don’t, nobody else will. Imagine the damage they could do without anyone poking at them through the bars on their cages. Or worse. They finally figure out how pick the lock and bust out of jail. O! Bother! They’ve done that already; haven’t they?

              1. Diane – that you think we should be in cages says a lot about your mentality. I do not think you should be caged. Basically, I think you are harmless.

                1. Harmlessness is one of my life goals. Trying other peoples’ patience, another. I forget the rest.

Comments are closed.