Bizarre, Criminal law, Politics

Daniels Charge Dismissal Deepens Doubts About Police Sting Operation In Columbus

1531390682941We discussed the arrest of Stormy Daniels this week and the curious Ohio laws making any touching between strippers and customers a crime, even the touching of clothing.  The arrest was part of an operation with four undercover officers.  The later dropping of the charges only deepened questions over the need for the string operation and the arrest of Daniels, who real name is Stephanie Clifford.

The 2007 state law called the Community Defense Act prohibits dancers from touching customers and vice versa.  A female policer undercover officer says that Daniels was topless when she “knowingly” touched the officer’s buttocks, placed her hands on the officer’s breast and then put her chest in the officer’s face while “on the premise of a sexually oriented business.”

The law states

(1) No patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family shall knowingly touch any employee while that employee is nude or seminude or touch the clothing of any employee while that employee is nude or seminude.

(2) No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude, shall knowingly touch a patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or the clothing of a patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or allow a patron who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee’s immediate family to touch the employee or the clothing of the employee.

(D) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of illegally operating a sexually oriented business, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Now, Columbus police chief Kim Jacobs says that the arrest was a “mistake” because “one element of the law was missed in error.”  Specifically, the law is only applicable to those who “regularly” perform at strip clubs and Daniels’ performance was part time of a two-night gig at the Sirens Gentlemen’s Club in Columbus.   Jacobs actually apologizes that “A mistake was made, and I accept full responsibility.”

I do not like these vague laws often enacted as morals legislation.  The provision does state “who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business.”  Daniels was just doing a limited appearance rather than a regular appearance.  However, she has announced that she will return to the club.  It is not clear what constitutes “regular” under the scope of the law.  How about someone who is just starting or is a temporary employee? Does appearing a couple time a year on a regular schedule mean “regular.”  The concern raised in the original blog was the vagueness of the terminology and danger of arbitrary enforcement.

There was a backlash in the area to the arrest of the woman who presents an ongoing embarrassment, and potential threat, to President Donald Trump.  Notably, Jacobs announced that not only would the three charges be dropped but the “motivations” of the officers will be “reviewed internally.”  Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti posted screenshots  of what he claimed where pro-Trump social media posts by the arresting officer.

An investigation is clearly warranted but does this mean that the sheriff will now resume arresting non-famous strippers for any contact at a strip club?  If that is the case, it would be good to have a full definition of what “regular” and other key terms might be under the Community Defense Act.

149 thoughts on “Daniels Charge Dismissal Deepens Doubts About Police Sting Operation In Columbus”

    1. By the dong! By the Dong.
      By the Dong all the way….
      From her first cigarette to her last dying day!

  3. why is my comment about state department statistics on human trafficking and how it relates to LE priorities domestically on moderation, but mr hussaing incoherent remark is not? i think i saw an advance fee scheme come from a user by that name the other day. i am sorry i am making so many contributions on the topic but please try and moderate out the real spam and not relevant remarks

  5. btw. the biggest proponent of trafficking to be used as a tool of diplomatic harassment was none other than Hillary when she was at State Dept. Counting up all the alleged trafficking related to China and Russia and flogging them over it. That is old news however. but here’s an example

    https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/

    here she was giving such a message at the OSCE
    https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PQdSXKfWSU

    now it’s Kamala Harris, another darling of the feminist advancement infrastructure.

    https://rewire.news/article/2018/03/01/anti-trafficking-legislation-shouldnt-come-cost-victims-sex-workers/

    the “Deep State” is actually pushing a lot of this anti human trafficking stuff for a lot of complicated reasons that have nothing to do with liberty or compassion. mostly they just like to flog “autocratic regimes” and pretend that America is oh so wonderful.

    here is an example from TODAY as if the tactic had gone away

    foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/13/putin-doesnt-care-about-sex-trafficking-russia-nigeria-world-cup-soccer/

  6. this terrific expose by journalist Eliz Nolan Brown laid it all out bare and naked like:

    http://reason.com/archives/2015/09/30/the-war-on-sex-trafficking-is

    “Sex Trafficking of Americans: The Girls Next Door.”

    “Sex-trafficking sweep nets arrests near Phoenix truck stops.”

    “Man becomes 1st jailed under new human trafficking law.”

    Conduct a Google news search for the word trafficking in 2015 and you’ll find pages of stories about the commercial sex trade, in which hundreds of thousands of U.S. women and children are supposedly trapped by coercion or force.

    A few decades prior, a survey of “trafficking” headlines would have yielded much different results. Back then, newspapers recounted tales of “contemporary Al Capones trafficking illegal drugs to the smallest villages and towns in our heartland,” and of organized “motorcycle gangs” trafficking LSD and hashish. “Many young black men in the ghetto see the drug trade as the Gold Rush of the 1980s,” the Philadelphia Inquirer told readers in 1988. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) warned of a “nationwide phenomenon” of drug lords abducting young people to force them into the drug trade. Crack kingpins were rumored to target runaways, beating them if they didn’t make drug sales quotas.

    Such articles offered a breathless sense that the drug trade was booming, irresistible to criminals, and in desperate need of child foot soldiers. Lawmakers touted harsher penalties for drug offenses. The war on drugs raged. New task forces were created. Civilians were trained how to “spot” drug traffickers in the wild, and students instructed how to rat out drug-using parents. Politicians spoke of a drug “epidemic” overtaking America, its urgency obviously grounds for anything we could throw its way.

    We know now how that all worked out.

    The tactics employed to “get tough” on drugs ended up entangling millions in the criminal justice system, sanctioning increasingly intrusive and violent policing practices, worsening tensions between law enforcement and marginalized communities, and degrading the constitutional rights of all Americans. Yet even as the drug war’s failures and costs become more apparent, the Land of the Free is enthusiastically repeating the same mistakes when it comes to sex trafficking. This new “epidemic” inspires the same panicked rhetoric and punitive policies the war on drugs did—often for activity that’s every bit as victimless.

    Forcing others into sex or any sort of labor is abhorrent, and it deserves to be treated like the serious violation it is. But the activity now targeted under anti-trafficking efforts includes everything from offering or soliciting paid sex, to living with a sex worker, to running a classified advertising website.

    What’s more, these new laws aren’t organic responses by legislators in the face of an uptick in human trafficking activity or inadequate current statutes. They are in large part the result of a decades-long anti-prostitution crusade from Christian “abolitionists” and anti-sex feminists, pushed along by officials who know a good political opportunity when they see it and by media that never met a moral panic they didn’t like.

    The fire is fueled by federal money, which sends police departments and activist groups into a grant-grubbing frenzy. The anti-trafficking movement is “just one big federal grant program,” Michael Hudson, a scholar with the conservative Hudson Institute, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Everybody is more worried about where they’re going to get their next grant” than helping victims, Hudson said.

    Because of the visceral feelings that the issue of paid sex has always provoked, it’s easy for overstatements and false statistics to go unchallenged, winning repetition in congressional hearings and the press. Yet despite all the dire proclamations, there’s little evidence of anything approaching an “epidemic” of sexual slavery.

    THE NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP

    From 2000 to 2002, the State Department claimed……”

  7. observe that it was a socalled “Trafficking” investigation. preposterous! does anyone really suspect that Stormy daniels is being trafficked? by who, the obnoxious Michael Avenatti? or that any of the strippers there are being chained up in the basement when their shifts are done?

    “trafficking” investigations are usually just anti-sex work raids dressed up in fancy talk that feminists like to hear

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/15/trafficking

  9. the typical vice undercover operation: unnecessary, and inept; yet, may yield an arrest, though rarely successful charges.

    this is not Trump’s fault, this is a whole culture of harassment of sex workers which is legally based on the tactics used by law enforcement

    here is a short article by a lawyer which discusses this in the context of a sting against supposed customers. but turnabout is the more frequent situation; a cop that is trying to get a stripper or a massage therapist to commit and illegal act for money. most citizens don’t realize that a policeman committing a crime, well, it isnt usually considered a crime by the courts, so long as he drags somebody else into it.

    https://wilsonlg.com/criminal/blog/are-prostitution-stings-police-%E2%80%9Centrapment%E2%80%9D

  10. I continue to be impressed by Stormy’s mug shot. Best one seen on this blog, by far. Though, since Stormy’s stock in trade is situated a bit below her face, maybe they should have zoomed the camera out a bit.

  11. Where’s the disciplinary action against law enforcement? There won’t be any. Why? Because she was guilty under the letter of the law — just like Flynn and Papadopoulos are. Only they’re going to get sentenced.

    1. That may well be. But if the followed the letter of the law? Why the discipline? Presumption is not now nor has it been a reason for discipline in any arena. It is amazing what this Country is considering as news worthy

      1. My comment says there is no legal grounds to discipline law enforcement. What is your point? That my comment is correct?

  13. Trump is busy beating up on NATO and May, why should he worry about Daniels? Police officers make mistakes. They lose traffic tickets. I, personally, have beaten them several times. I am more concerned with why Rosenstein is trying to get 30 prosecutors to check Kavanagh’s work or why the FBI is covering for Strzok.

    1. I want to know why the president, the White House counsel, or the Attorney-General are giving Rosenstein any assignments at all. Unless it’s busywork to keep him occupied.

    2. Very good question Paul, not to mention they found another whole pile of complicit Russkies under the carpet of the DNC offices. I thought they sprayed for them. They just seem to get everywhere, especially before high profile engagements of state are about to commence. ???

      Also, read on another news site (probably expanded in detail like most left-leaning reporting) that Daniels attacked club patrons by delivering facial blows with wildly swinging breasts. I guess those poor folks didn’t duck Stormy’s outright physical assault. Kind of like the Ren & Stimpy flying butt pliers. Hide Dems!

      1. slohrss29 – I would think assault with deadly weapons would be better charges. 😉

  14. I found the statement by the Columbus PD Chief to be interesting.
    That “the motivations of the officers” will be reviewed by the department.
    We’re “early in the aftermath” of the incident and intial charges against Stormy Daniels.
    So it may be months out before the Columbus PD concludes an investigation.
    But the results of that investugation, and others, will be interesting to see.
    If there’s enough of “an opening” to seriously question the conduct of the officers involved, the PD itself might be targeted in a lawsuit.

  15. They dropped the charges, and you’re still not happy. Maybe you should just stay out of Columbus and let them mind their community standards and you mind yours in whatever section of greater Washington in which you live. Deal?

  16. If the undercover vice squad was sent to the Blue Oyster biker bar, things would have been different.

  18. This is sick. Sick that we send police officers to strip clubs to arrest someone that might or might not have been touched or touched a patron. Please. This police department has too many officers if they can spend time doing a sting at a topless bar.

    In Idaho they tried to shut down a movie theater because they dared to serve wine with an NC17 movie. You can be served wine if it is an R rated movie but not NC17.

    Will the morality police please stick you head up out of the sand and police your own morality before you try to fix some one else’s.

    1. I’m guessing the topless bar sting operation was the brainchild I’d the young rank and file. Lol!

    2. Paul,….
      – I now drive extra miles to entirely bypass the state of Idaho.
      Until c. 2014, I never had any problem driving thousands of miles, over the years, to or through the state of Idaho.
      After the Darien Roseen incident, and an experience that I had similar to that of Mr. Roseen and others, I altered my driving route to avoid Idaho.
      I have no desire to ever set foot ( or wheels!) in that state again.

  19. From one extreme to another, people vent their spleens. A wigged out Democrat that just can’t accept the shame of a Trump administration berates an ingredient of that shame. A psycho angry woman beats an old man half to death with a layer of bigotry towards immigrants. A pro Trump police official ‘teaches Stormy Daniels a lesson. And so on; the two ingredients work together, pent up frustration for whatever reason and a direction or application encouraged. There will always be anger vented because of political or other ideology, however, a President encouraging this anger, exhibiting this anger, focusing this anger results in a 50+% rise in rate crimes against Hispanics, some sort of justification among the haters, etc.

    Anger and hatred is always there, on all sides of the equation. Rarely if ever has it been used to such an extent as with Trump. There is the message and then there is the vehicle. Instead of attempting to pull people together, Trump is fueling the anger and hatred that drives them apart. The big questions are was the President’s tirades against immigrants from South of the border enough to release the anger and hatred from the psycho brick wielding woman, was the police official that orchestrated the ‘lesson’ taught to the stripper enabled by Trump, etc? Perhaps it’s all coincidental and we don’t have enough information and will have to wait and see. In the mean time our idiot buffoon continues embarrass the US. Ya have to hand it to the other world leaders for putting up with him. From before he came along, until after he left, nothing changed, but it was all because of him and they loved him for it. I’ve never been a fan of the Queen and that circus but I empathize with her having to sit through an hour with Trump.

    1. A shame that you couldn’t get so upset over the police officers of the FBI who hated Trump, but that appears to be just fine with you.

      1. Wally,

        The only thing isaac likes is hating on conservatives and any increase of the govt stealing peoples property.

      2. Aw poor Donald Trump, harassed by Deep State, it happens when the president has no experience in government. Certain government employees will take their jobs seriously and mistake the president’s stupidity for treason.

        And ‘where’ is poor Donald now? Why he’s alienating our allies! That’s what presidents do, of course. ..Or don’t they..?

        1. it happens when the president has no experience in government.

          You mean, Trump’s not a political lifer ergo malfeasance by FBI agents and operatives like Sally Yates is legitimate? You sure you want to go there?

          1. A president with no experience in government is like a brain surgeon who never went to med school. Or maybe an airplane designer who never studied aeronautics. “How hard could it be?” is not a good answer.

            1. Andrew Jackson (Trump’s hero) introduced the spoils system into government, because he thought that government duties were so easy that any idiot right off the street, could do it. Only thing that counted was loyalty to the boss. Does that sound familiar?

              1. The federal government had a five-digit workforce during Jackson’s time in office, a comfortable majority of whom were soldiers or postal employees. IIRC, in the late 19th c, about 20% of the positions in the federal government would change hands consequent to a change in administration.

                Prior to Jackson, federal employees were hired per fuzzy notions of ‘fitness of character’. I’m sure the results were perfectly fair.

            2. You were perfectly happy to have Barack Obama in office. His executive experience consisted of a short tour running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground. He was a working member of Congress for all of 2.5 years. He sat in legislative bodies for 12 years but established himself as a maven in no area of policy. He drew a salary from the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, published no scholarly papers, taught boutique courses, and did not attend faculty meetings. He practiced law for all of about 3 years as an associate in a firm of ordinary dimensions. His personal finances were a mess until sales of The Audacity of Mope took off, to the point where he turned to Tony Rezko for help.

              That perpetual tyro was fine as far as you’re concerned. The real estate agent manque (with the hairplugs, capped teeth, embarrassing children, and running mouth) who was second-in-line should the president have keeled over dead was just fine with you. John Kerry, a perfectly common-and-garden small practice lawyer with no executive experience and scant history of having shepherded legislation through Congress (but a remarkable talent for locating and seducing women with nine-figure sums of money behind them), was just fine. You could say Albert Gore at least knew something of the decision-making process and the warp-and-woof of daily life in the White House. He had actual policy interests. He was also a legacy pol, lapsed newspaper reporter, and serial grad school dropout. Fine with you guys.

              You want people who’ve never supervised anything but their desk (or a staff with one job – to serve them) in charge of agencies with real buildings, institutional missions, and payrolls. Because you’re not as astute as you think you are.

              1. Spastic: just a laundry list of false equivalencies. Is that all you’re good for?

                One might note this is a legal blog. Can lawyers really offer false equivalencies in defense of their clients?

                “Judge, if my client is guilty of this, then what about blah blah blah..?? Shouldn’t they be prosecuted too..?? And what about blah blah blah..?? Shouldn’t they be serving time..?? I ‘know’ they have no relevance to this case. I’m just asking because Fox News has conditioned me to make frivolous false equivelnicies”

              2. Spastic: just a laundry list of false equivalencies. Is that all you’re good for?

                They’re not false equivalencies at all. They are demonstrations that the criteria you’ve been using to evaluate the president’s background are stupid. That people like Obama and Kerry ticket punch their way through public offices or read briefing books compiled by their staffs does not prepare them to hold executive positions.

                Along time ago, Michael Kinsley noted that Washington officials tend to expand (“like a gas”) to fill the positions to which they’ve been appointed. He didn’t recognize, though, that that’s more true of members of Congress than it is someone like Bud MacFarlane. Members of Congress are there because they can run fundraising and publicity campaigns (or manage to hire people who can). The capacity to ‘work a room’ is more consequential than having any real skills or knowing much about anything. These are the people you fancy should be sitting in the President’s chair.

            1. Peter Hill,…
              I think that Comey is sincere in his belief that his controversial actions were apropriate, and sincere in his belief that James Comey is a tower of integretity who is best qualified to be the moral arbitrator in most matters.
              I’m not comparing Comey to Yates. But sincerity isn’t necessarily much of a factor in the competence and judgement of political figures.

              1. I think Comey sincerely believed that he had to ‘cover’ himself against pro-Trump forces in the New York office who were in touch with Rudy Guiiani. And that’s why Comey sent that letter to Congress that sunk Hillary’s campaign. But Comey should have gotten clearance from Lynch before he attempted the latter.

                1. Peter,…
                  I’ve mentioned some of this before, but Comey, not Giuliani or the New York agents, was the Director of the FBI.
                  It’s one thing if the “New York guys” had leaked information about the Hillary emails on the Abedin-Weiner laptop.
                  It’s another thing for the top man in the FBI to bow to the possibility or threat of a leak and make decisions based on that possibility/threat.
                  If Comey felt that he needed to announce the reopening of the email investigation, he should have done so in late Seotember, not 11 days before the election.
                  About Lynch; Comey was not very specific, but he’s strongly hinted that Lynch was in some way compromised, and that forced Comey to “take charge”.
                  This is an area where more specifics are needed involving Comey’s “hints” of conflicts of interest or bias on Lynch’s part.
                  But even if that is shown to be true, there were others in the DOJ who could “step in” for Lynch.
                  Look who is directing the Special Counsel/ Russia investigation at DOJ; it doesn’t always have to be the Att. Gen. in authority and command of every issue, even vital issues.
                  I haven’t seen any indication that Comey consudered that option.

    2. isaac,

      How do you know this was planned by President Trump? Maybe the conspiracy is just the opposite. Maybe the officers hate President Trump and orchestrated this knowing full well that people like you would link it to the President.

      1. JIM 22,..
        -As I mentioned yesterday, it was inevitable that accusations of “collusion” on the part the Trump administration in the Daniels incident would be tossed around.

    3. @issacbasonkavich

      I have a great idea. LET’S GET A DIVORCE. You can have your multicult, leftist utopia and I will have what used to be called America. Fair enough?

      Hey, aren’t you the guy who favors European/Canadian style hate speech laws here in the US?

      An answer would be nice, not a name calling.

      Antonio
      A non-PC Hispanic

    4. And, Isaac, you haven’t even touched on all the crap Trump has done in the last 2 days. Did you know, for instance, that Trump has better polling numbers than Abraham Lincoln, according to an interview published in the Rupert Mudoch rag called “The Sun”? I didn’t. I wasn’t aware that Gallup and Quinappiac were around in the 1860’s. How did they conduct their poll, anyway? Also, Trump says he doubled or tripled the U.S. GDP. I must have missed that news story. This statement proves he doesn’t even know what “GDP” means. How about stating that England has a good relationship with Putin? Doesn’t he realize that Russia poisoned 4 people with nerve agents on British soil, and one of them died? He also praised a political opponent of Teresa May who resigned from her cabinet recently, saying he’d made a great prime minister. He also said he could have better negotiated BREXIT.

      Tens of thousands of Brits took to the streets of London, carrying anti-Trump placards, some of which simply said “I hate you”. I’ve never seen anything like this before. Can’t someone make him stay home and shut up, while we still have some allies left?

      1. Natcha chimes in with a totally off topic list off beefs against trump.

        1. The interview with The Sun is excerpted below, from The Sun online. This is relevant to the discussion about Stormy Daniels because her arrest and notoriety are yet another problem created by Trump, as are the matters below.

          “In an extraordinary intervention timed to coincide with his UK visit, Mr Trump said Theresa May ignored his advice by opting for a soft Brexit strategy.

          And he warned her any attempts to maintain close ties with the EU would make a lucrative US trade deal very unlikely.

          Mr Trump said: “If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal.”

          Donald Trump said Theresa May’s new soft Brexit blueprint would ‘kill’ any future trade deal with the United States
          Reuters

          Donald Trump said Theresa May’s new soft Brexit blueprint would ‘kill’ any future trade deal with the United States

          His comments, damaging to the Prime Minister, come as he delivers his most brutally honest verdict yet on Britain in which he also:

          Accused EU leaders of destroying its culture and identity by allowing in millions of migrants

          Tore into London Mayor Sadiq Khan for not standing up to terrorists

          Blamed Khan for spiralling crime in the capital

          Insisted former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson would make “a great Prime Minister”

          Denied once branding Theresa May a “bossy schoolteacher”

          Maintained he would keep ties with Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin despite the Salisbury Novichok poisonings

          Demanded Britain and other Nato countries spend more on defence

          Spoke of his sadness at feeling unwelcome in the capital by anti-Trump protesters

          Claimed millions of Brits backed his policies

          Told of his pride at taking wife Melania to meet the Queen”

          So, this obese rodeo clown has the gall to not only think himself qualified to offer “advice” to the British Prime Minister, but to complain when she doesn’t follow it, showing his arrogance and misogyny, bolstered by calling her a “bossy schoolteacher”. In keeping with his role as Putin’s butt buddy, he’s trying to screw up the EU trade deals, and says that he will remain anal friends with Putin even though Putin deploys nerve agents on foreign soil. I guess he thinks the Brits are too sensitive about foreign governments committing murder on their soil, just like he thinks it’s OK for Russia to help him cheat to win the election. He displays his racism and xenophobia by complaining about British migrants, and accused the London mayor, who is of Middle Eastern ancestry, of being a wussy on terrorism. Lies about “millions” of Brits supporting him. His malignant narcissism is an embarrassment to this country.

          2. It actually is not relevant to the discussion, as you claim, and your accusation that Stormy Daniels “arrest and noteriety are yet another problem created by Trump” is an even wilder claim.

          3. Another fine, upstanding Trump supporter: a former firefighter and paramedic, terrorizing his neighbors.

            https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/glenn-halfin/

            “His Facebook page reveals few details about him, but he does “like” several pages related to President Donald Trump and other Republican politicians along with conservative groups and members of the conservative media, including some on the far right. Among the pages he likes are “Blue Lives Matter,” “Taking Back America,” “Survivalist Tips,” “God Family Country,” “America’s Conservative Voice,” “Conservatives Against a Liberal Agenda,” “Southern Culture on the Rise” (a group that features a Confederate flag logo), the NRA, “Free Lives Matter” (a “free speech advocacy group that features a graphic of the Statue of Liberty holding an AR-15), Sheriff David Clarke, Milo Yiannopoulos, Allan West, “Vets Before Illegals,” Infowars and “Trump 2020.””

            “Haflin also says on his Facebook page that he works in “safety and security” at ExxonMobil’s headquarters in Irving, Texas.”

            Just doing his part to help…”MAGA.”

            Too many of these types. “Basta.”

          4. Everything he said is perfectly reasonable. Your emotional disorders really should not regulate what public officials say.

            2. It’s crystal clear that your own mental health and “emotional disorders” are in need of attention, TStD. But it’s easier to point the finger at others.

          5. natcha says “because her arrest and notoriety are yet another problem created by Trump, as are the matters below.” NO evidence adduced that Trump had anything to do with this arrest. Just making crap up aren’t you? It’s also a completely unlikely speculation. Trump is not the cops boss. Learn a thing or two about civics.

            Now I have filled this article with relevant commentary about the legitimate social interests of sex workers and the bogus methods used to legally investigate and harass them but you guys ignore that forest for the tree that is Stormy daniels. Which kind of proves my point about the left not giving a crap about sex workers. Or the working class in general but that was the subject of a different article’s commentary

      2. I thought you wanted Trump out of the White House, now you want him to come home.😃😏☺
        Make up your mind, Natacha.

        1. I want him to hole up in his golden tower with its golden toilets, which is his “home”. He doesn’t belong in our White House.

          1. You don’t belong in any position where you’d be able to exercise any discretion or would have to interact with human beings.

          2. Actually, the winner of an election is entitled to live in the White House.
            If you mean what I think you mean by “our White House”, you need to realize that it isn’t the Demorats’ White House .
            Even if they think of it as “our White House”.

            1. “Our” means the pick of the majority of American voters. They voted against him. He is not fit to occupy the residence of men like Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Obama, Ike, or even the Bushes.

              1. Natacha,…
                I rarely use expressions like “my president” or “our president”; not a big thing, but to me the president is just THE president, no matter who it is.
                I’ve pointed out that John Kerry very nearly won the presidency in 2004, despite the fact that Bush 43 got 3,000,000 more popular votes.
                A minor shift in the vote of Ohio would have put Kerry at 270+`in Electoral College votes
                Is your commitment to the “our’ president is only ‘our’ president if he wins the popular vote ” so deep that you would have been still bitching and moaning about a Kerry win 18 months into his administration?
                Or do you object to the Constitution’s c. 230 year Electoral College method of determining election winners only when it’s politically expedient for you to do so?

Comments are closed.