Home / General / The Shoe Storm Shows No Sign Of Abating

The Shoe Storm Shows No Sign Of Abating

Comments
/
/
/
809 Views

151221122025-trump-shrug-super-alt-11

The Times gets in on this Trump-related-journalism thing:

Donald J. Trump was emphatic in the second presidential debate: Yes, he had boasted about kissing women without permission and grabbing their genitals. But he had never actually done those things, he said.

“No,” he declared under questioning on Sunday evening, “I have not.”

At that moment, sitting at home in Manhattan, Jessica Leeds, 74, felt he was lying to her face. “I wanted to punch the screen,” she said in an interview in her apartment.

More than three decades ago, when she was a traveling businesswoman at a paper company, Ms. Leeds said, she sat beside Mr. Trump in the first-class cabin of a flight to New York. They had never met before.

About 45 minutes after takeoff, she recalled, Mr. Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her.

According to Ms. Leeds, Mr. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt.

[…]

Mr. Trump’s claim that his crude words had never turned into actions was similarly infuriating to a woman watching on Sunday night in Ohio: Rachel Crooks.

Ms. Crooks was a 22-year-old receptionist at Bayrock Group, a real estate investment and development company in Trump Tower in Manhattan, when she encountered Mr. Trump outside an elevator in the building one morning in 2005.

Aware that her company did business with Mr. Trump, she turned and introduced herself. They shook hands, but Mr. Trump would not let go, she said. Instead, he began kissing her cheeks. Then, she said, he “kissed me directly on the mouth.”

It didn’t feel like an accident, she said. It felt like a violation.

“It was so inappropriate,” Ms. Crooks recalled in an interview. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that.

It seems the Billy Bush tapes were an extremely rare instance of Trump telling the truth.

…See also.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • postmodulator

    I’m not going to pitch a fit or anything, and I’m not normally a squeamish person, but I don’t know if I need to see that picture again during this election cycle. Okay?

    • Nobdy

      Yeah, and Ivanka is a victim here. If not in the legal sense of actually being molested then at least in the sense of having a terrible parent who taught her awful values and cared only for her looks.

      She doesn’t deserve to be dragged into this. I don’t like her beliefs or actions as an adult but in this photo she is a child and my heart breaks for her.

      She never really had a chance.

      • I will second both of these comments. At this point I think any photograph containing both Donald Trump and one or both of his daughters will make my skin crawl for the rest of my life.

        • Origami Isopod

          I’m going to echo these sentiments. No matter what Ivanka has done as an adult, she did not deserve this as a child (and she certainly does not deserve her father’s continued creepiness). These photos have been circulating for ages and are not going to convince anyone who wasn’t already convinced not to vote for Trump. I don’t see that continuing to post them has that much value.

          • Scott Lemieux

            Fixorated.

            • PhoenixRising

              Thank you, on behalf of the club of Grown Women Who Have Never Been Sexually Harassed In Our Entire Lives–apparently we could meet in a Honda. The sedan, not the minivan.

              I was pretty happily ignorant last week when I didn’t know that.

            • Like the others said, thanks.

            • Peterr

              Reading the headline, this came to mind — though it’s more of a shower than a fullblown storm.

              Now if they all had done that . . .

          • Captain Oblivious

            Ditto.

            ETA: Thanks.

      • AMK

        Ivanka is a victim here

        That’s absurd, unless you have hard evidence that Trump did to her what he did to other women. Here’s someone who’s been obscenely pampered her whole life, who by all accounts wouldn’t know a real problem if it smacked her accross the face. That everyone could be so victimized.

        • He groped her on stage at the RNC in front of the entire country. Given how he’s talked about her for most of her life and how he’s talked about women in general and young girls in particular, at this point, it is irresponsible not to speculate. And I’m not even saying that snarkily this time. I honestly think that the odds that he’s done something horrific to her are well over 50%.

          (Notice also how Tiffany basically recoiled from him at the second debate.)

          • ‘Recoiling’ doesn’t begin to describe it. she almost leapt off the stage.

            • You’re right; I think I blocked out how clearly horrified she looked from my memory because this election has been horrifying enough already.

        • Nobdy

          Ivanka never had money troubles and lived in (super gaudy) luxury, but having a narcissist parent is definitely a real problem and can leave lasting scars. Every pose with her as a child she has to beam at her father in adoration, like he’s royalty and she’s his reflection.

          She was raised, in part, by a twisted egomaniac. Maybe he physically assaulted her maybe he didn’t, I certainly don’t know, but I can’t imagine it was pleasant or easy and I do see her as a victim.

          If it meant you could inherit $150 million would you like to have been raised by Donald Trump?

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

            If it meant you could inherit $150 million would you like to have been raised by Donald Trump?

            Because my wife is clergy (now retired) I’ve heard a lot of horror stories from people about their childhoods. My parents were very fallible humans, but my childhood was so much better than so many people’s.

            Many of these folks have not only survived but become truly decent people. At times I wonder why, given the advantage of sane parents, I haven’t been a better person than I am.

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

            I won’t consider it a true shoe storm until I see a video of him ducking a shoe like W did in Iraq.

            • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

              Have no idea why this appeared here. Was supposed to be an independent thread.

        • fd2

          https://www.buzzfeed.com/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing

          Most of the women had fond recollections of Ivanka Trump, who, they said, came into the changing room to mingle. Billado said she told Ivanka about Donald Trump entering the room while the girls were changing their clothes. Billado remembers Ivanka answering, “Yeah, he does that.”

          There could be other interpretations of that statement, of course, but it’s hard not to draw the obvious conclusion.

        • veleda_k

          She can be both a bad person and a victim. Even if he never molested her, he’s still been inappropriate with her pretty much her entire life. Touching her like that and talking about her that way are terrible things to to do to anyone, especially a child.

        • Origami Isopod

          Ladies and gentlemen, the ne plus ultra of manarchism.

          It’s also a creepy mirror image of the conservative belief that you can’t “truly” rape a woman beneath a certain social status, or a woman who isn’t “properly” attached to a man. And that’s because it stems from the same dehumanizing assumption: “Our women are precious and should be protected. Their women are fair game.”

      • vic rattlehead

        Partially agree. She doesn’t deserve to have the creepy photos everywhere.

        But as for her behavior as an adult, meh. At a certain point people are responsible for their own actions. She’s not a minor anymore. She doesn’t have to be involved in her father’s business or campaign. She’s in her 30s. So while she probably had a really fucked up childhood, that doesn’t take away her moral agency today. It should be considered in mitigation, but doesn’t take it away entirely.

    • ExpatJK

      Agreed. It’s especially disgusting when you think about the reports of him going backstage where teen pageant contestants were naked.

      • Pat

        That part is really awful, yes.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          I can kind of deal with Trump behaving in evil ways.

          It’s the enabling of millions of Americans who can hear the tape of him bragging about doing this, and the testimonies of the kids he did this to, and yet they find a reason to excuse him – that’s what I find far more appalling.

          • Trump is horrifying enough on his own. The fact that he’s polling even above 1% after the tape was released says even more horrifying things about this whole country.

  • Peterr

    But they are only the finest high-heeled shoes that are falling – Christian Louboutins, Louis Vittons, Jimmy Choos, and Manolo Blahniks.

    • wjts

      Given the potential for damage, I’m thinking golf shoes gusting to hobnail boots.

  • Perhaps Bill Cosby can give him the number for a good lawyer.

    • brad

      Maybe we can get Cosby, Ailes, and Trump in a room together and blow the fucking building up.

      • Peterr

        I wouldn’t mind simply getting the three of them in a room together and throwing away the keys for 25-40 years. I think there’s a nice gated community in Otisville NY — a cozy upstate place — with lots of guards that would make them feel right at home.

      • Captain Oblivious

        Nah. Just lock them up and bring in the Abu Ghraib “interviewers” for a first hand demonstrationg of what “consent” means.

        And throw Rush “Non-consensual sex is not rape” Limbaugh in there with them.

        • Origami Isopod

          Wishing rape on people to “teach them a lesson” is vile, and it contributes to rape culture.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        that (sadly, because I liked Bill Cosby when I was a kid- “Fat Albert”) is one of those “nuke the building from orbit to be sure” situations

      • Warren Terra

        Maybe we can get Cosby, Ailes, and Trump in a room together

        No, they’ll compare notes or even physically meld, producing a super-predator.

        • That’s why you blow it up. I’m ok putting Limbaugh in there as well and I probably wouldn’t mind if Polanski and Woody Allen were there when it blew up either.

      • vic rattlehead

        Say what you will about Cosby, at least he didn’t brag about it. Well, that we know of.

        • georgekaplan

          He did devote an entire routine to his daydream of slipping “Spanish fly” into a girl’s drink. That was a warning sign all right.

  • cato the censor

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: every time Donald Trump is mentioned, the appropriate response should be, “Pig. Pig pig pig pig pig. Sooey. Sooey.” This should be done on the Internet, cable news shows, radio talk shows, etc.

    Because, really, what else is he?

    • I think this may be unfair to pigs, who, if nothing else, are highly intelligent animals. I don’t think anyone can say the same of Donald Trump.

      • N__B

        I also doubt that Trump would be a source of quality bacon or ham.

        • Captain Oblivious

          Chris Kluwe called him an over-tanned ham hock. Not fair to ham hocks.

          • Seitz

            Ham hocks are delicious! Trump, on the other hand, would just absolutely ruin a split pea soup.

      • Captain Oblivious

        I’m trying to think of a vertebrate to whom it might be fair to compare Hair Furor. I am at an utter loss.

        • Karen24

          Rats. Rats are nasty smelly creatures that gnaw things and pee and poop all over everything. Definitely rats

          For invertabrates , cockroaches and fire ants.

          • Rats can also be fairly intelligent and we owe a lot of scientific discoveries to testing on lab rats. What scientific discoveries has Donald Trump been responsible for?

            Fire ants are an appropriate comparison, though. I was born in Atlanta, and fire ants are pure evil.

            • Karen24

              Fire ants. Nasty and not native to this part of the world.

              • Thom

                We just learned (through my wife being stung by one–a nasty, dangerous sting) of the asp caterpillar. It looks small and fluffy, like a miniature toupee. Perfect for Trump.

          • Philip

            Rats are intelligent, pro-social animals. Maybe some sort of crocodile? Tasmanian devil? Komodo dragon?

            • N__B

              Some crocodiles are friendly, with big soulful eyes and accordions.

              • wjts

                They have also been known to save people from burning buildings.

                • vic rattlehead

                  Good lord I haven’t thought about that book in years. One of my favorites.

                • efgoldman

                  They have also been known to save people from burning buildings.

                  My daughter loved that book 30+ years ago. Granddaughter is just getting into it.

          • Origami Isopod

            Google “rats empathy”. The results may surprise you.

        • Peterr

          I’m thinking tofu — utterly tasteless on its own — with a touch of saffron in a large glob of mayonnaise spread over the top.

        • The Bugblatter Beast of Traal? A Vogon?

          • The Vogons are explicitly described by the Guide as being “not exactly evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous”. I don’t use this word of too many human beings, but I don’t think Trump can be considered “not exactly evil”.

            Perhaps the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast could be a fair comparison, though it strikes me as roughly being an apex predator, and I don’t think Trump qualifies as that either.

            • wjts

              The correct Adamsian analogy is the NowWhattian boghog:

              …[T]he major activities pursued on NowWhat were those of catching, skinning and eating NowWhattian boghogs, which were the only extant form of animal life of NowWhat, all others having long ago died of despair. The boghogs were tiny, vicious creatures, and the small margin by which they fell short of being inedible was the margin by which life on the planet subsisted…. [M]aking yourself some protective clothing out of boghog skins was an exercise in disappointment and futility, since the skins were unaccountably thin and leaky…. [They] communicated by biting each other very hard on the thigh. Life on NowWhat being what it was, most of what a boghog might have to say about it could easily be signified by these means.

              • I should’ve remembered that. I just re-read the whole series a few months ago. Then again, I’ve only read Mostly Harmless twice, whereas I’ve read the others at least four times each.

                • wjts

                  Mostly Harmless is definitely the weakest one in the trilogy (which is why I’ve also read it fewer times than I have the others), but it does have some very good bits in it. Such as the NowWhattian boghog and the parts about Arthur making sandwiches.

                • I definitely liked it a lot more re-reading it than I did the first time I liked it. The moments you mentioned were among the highlights for sure. It’s definitely still the weakest in the series, but I’m glad I read it again. I also feel like, if the deus ex machina ending from the radio series had been dumped into the book, people would remember it somewhat more fondly.

                • Personally I think So Long And Thanks For All The Fish is the weakest entry in the trilogy. All the stuff about life on Earth bores me to tears, and there’s the uninteresting romantic angle. I prefer the darker, hopeless tinge to Mostly Harmless, including the perfect ending.

        • Hells Littlest Angel

          There’s only one vertebrate that behaves like that: the human.

        • Sadly, hagfish and lampreys are not vertebrates.

      • Downpuppy

        Lie down with pigs, don’t wake up.
        They’ll eat you, dammit!

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          Al Swearengen endorses this statement.

    • Arouet

      Razorbacks, woooh!

      Wait, what are we doing?

  • Yankee

    Strange that Rubio and them couldn’t find some of this stuff when Donald started winning primaries. Weak, those guys.

    • Pat

      All those millions of dollars in donations and not a penny for opposition research…

    • Downpuppy

      JEB’s failure to ask his cousin is epic

      COMPUTER: No decipherable reading on females. However, unusual reading on male board members. Detecting high respiration patterns, perspiration rates up, heartbeat rapid, blood pressure higher than normal.
      KIRK: Uh, that’s sufficient. Strike that from the record, Mr. Spock

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        That leaves out the possibility that JEB did ask Billy, who by then had figured out that if this came out he’d lose his job, and so Billy lied and said he had nothing.

        • vic rattlehead

          If he really thought he would lose his job, why would he have openly bragged about the recording’s existence (which he allegedly did in Rio)?

          And from the way he supposedly described Trump (“acting like a real dog”-quite the understatement) I don’t think he completely understood how bad it was.

          • BigHank53

            Billy Bush sounds like a real bro. Why would he think a recording of Trump boasting about his sexual conquests* would be anything to be ashamed of? He’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

            *That’s how Donald and Billy seem to view them.

            • witlesschum

              I wouldn’t be shocked if Billy Bush knowing he comes off on TV like a flamboyant gay fellow leads to Bush overcompensating by trying to out bro every bro who ever broed.

            • Halloween Jack

              Right. The conversation probably went something like this:

              Jeb: Damn, that creepy clown is really biting into my poll numbers! Billy, you've met him, can you think of anything we can use against him?

              Billy: Nope, sorry, dude! He's super-cool! Why, this one time when we were on the bus together...

              Jeb: Oh, never mind.

    • Joe_JP

      Rubio. The guy now favored to be re-elected. smh

      • vic rattlehead

        Christ what a dimwit. Murphy is pretty telegenic and a decent speaker, maybe we’ll get lucky. It’s pretty close isn’t it? Just gotta get out the vote and hope Trump continues dragging the party down.

        • Rob in CT

          PEC has that race as Rubio +4%. Possible, but not likely.

  • Rudolph Schnaubelt

    Voted today. Very therapeutic. Felt better fast.

    Your turn.

    • N__B

      I’ve got to wait until the 8th, but Mini__B is coming with me in the morning on the way to school and is going with Mrs__B in the afternoon on the way from school. Sooner or later we’ll explain to him that adults don’t get to vote twice.

      • John Revolta

        New Yawk ain’t New Yawk anymore

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      me too. quite satisfying not just to vote for Clinton but also against Trump

    • Vance Maverick

      Your taste for action has grown milder since 1886!

    • Captain Oblivious

      I haven’t voted yet because I’m still researching some of the “non-partisan” down ballot shit and the proposed constitutional amendments.

      I want to make sure I vote for the very most bestest people to head up Mosquito Control District #1 and Mosquito Control District #2.

      Seriously, why are these not appointed administrative positions?

      • There hasn’t been a single nonpartisan election on this ballot (the school board race in the primary was open and nonpartisan, though), and I was able to vote party-line D for the first time I can ever remember doing. The Florida Democratic Party is hopelessly incompetent, but this is better than I hoped for. I think I’m going to vote yes to retain all the judges, because I don’t want Rick Scott to appoint their replacements. Haven’t 100% decided on how to vote for the amendments, and after hearing FPL is backing #1, I think I’m going to do more research on all of them, because #1 sounded good when I read it, but apparently it does the exact opposite of what it sounds like it does. Probably going to vote yes on medical marijuana unless it turns out to be a really poorly written amendment, and the other two sound like harmless tax exemptions for first responders and for seniors with serious conditions, but I’ll probably do more research on those too.

        A lot of these elections are really dumb, though. I agree with you that positions like mosquito control don’t need to be elected. Even if media coverage of those elections were adequate (which it isn’t), there’d be no possible way the public could know what would qualify someone for positions of that nature. I’m as in favour of democracy as anyone in the Democratic Party, but there are some places where it isn’t necessary.

        • Captain Oblivious

          Well #1 is completely unnecessary, as you can already install solar panels, and there’s not enough wind in most parts of Florida to bother with wind power. I’m not sure who benefits from this. It’s very vaguely and confusingly worded, and seems to be saying that local governments can not force dirty-energy users to subsidize clean-energy users. So I’m going NO.

          #2 — medical mary jane. I ran into some of the petitioners, and they were stoners, not glaucoma patients. I’m in a heighten-the-contradiction mood on this one. Either legalize it for everyone or for no one. There’s always some crooked doctor who will say you need it for your imaginary pain. So I’m voting NO. I would vote YES for total legalization.

          #3 — yes

          #5 — no. If the exemption were lower, I might support it, but this strikes me as a tax giveaway and will hurt already financially strapped counties. You already get one lifetime homestead exemption in FL. And the last thing this state needs is more snowbirds moving here to dodge taxes back home.

          You can find the complete text of all four amendments here [PDF alert]. Might want to keep a bottle of eye drops handy.

          • Medical MJ still strikes me as a step in the right direction since it’s been a gateway (I don’t like the pun, but it’s the most appropriate word I can think of) to full legalisation down the road. Pretty much every state that’s gone to full legalisation had medical MJ first, so I’m fine doing it in steps. Not to mention that I’d rather people be able to get MJ for pain rather than get put on opiates and end up addicted to them. We’ve got enough of a problem with opiate addiction in this country already; medical MJ could help decrease it somewhat.

            Thanks for the full text. Manny does have a good point about tax exemptions being in the state constitution. I do feel bad about voting against disabled first responders, though. Think I’ll probably go with your suggestsions on #3 and #5, though I’ll probably also think it over for at least another day or two before actually marking my ballot.

            • Captain Oblivious

              I might be persuaded on the marijuana. I’m still leaning no, but I’ll reconsider base on your arguments.

              • djw

                The three step process of a) legalize medical marijuana, b) medical marijuana becomes back-door legalization and 3) the world doesn’t end seems to have been an important part of how nervous drug war propaganda victims came around on the subject of legalization in several states, it seems to me.

                A acquaintance of mine in Washington has a number of complex persistent medical problems that lead to debilitating pain, which seems to be best alleviated by a) prescription drugs that leave her in too much of a stupor to be a meaningful, present parent to her son, and b) marijuana. She’s a devout Mormon who could never bring herself to procure and use drugs illegally. Her particular case may be fairly unique, but I’m sure there are some number of people whose lives are improved by medical marijuana to such a degree such that “this law isn’t quite perfect” doesn’t seem to clear the bar for extending their suffering to me.

            • Warren Terra

              “Medical Marijuana” legislation, without actual medication, is a travesty of a sham of a farce. The weed itself is probably harmless, but I can’t abide the dishonesty involved. It also promotes a two-tier legal system, where middle-class kids comfortable in the system get a permit from a bent doc, and are protected, while lower-status kids buy from a street dealer and risk real consequenes.

              It’s true that the west coast, is transitioning to Legalization. The question is, how much credit to give the Medical Marijuana interregnum for that. Maybe a lot!

              • I think it probably had a major effect. Voters saw firsthand that medical MJ didn’t cause widespread societal breakdown and were more willing to consider full legalisation. Hearing that Colorado, Oregon, and Washington haven’t descended into lawlessness is one thing, but unless you’ve actually been there for yourself, you’re less likely to consider that when legalisation comes up. On the other hand, a few years after a medical MJ amendment passes, you’ll probably know someone who uses it, and that will be enough to convince a lot of people that it’s nbd.

                I mean, I agree; it sucks that it creates a two-tiered system where poor people are less likely to be able to get a scrip. But it seems like the best way to get people more amenable to legalisation, so I’m willing to put up with it.

                • Judas Peckerwood

                  What you said.

            • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

              Good interview today on Fresh Air about the history of how mj came to be subject to such disproportional legal penalties and excessive law enforcement.

          • skate

            Yes, be very careful voting on #1. Friend of mine in Orlando has been posting on FB about that initiative being so convoluted that it probably means the opposite of what most folks think it says.

        • Manny Kant

          “Harmless” tax exemptions being written into state constitutions is a terrible idea.

          • Captain Oblivious

            Yes. Frankly, most everything written into state constitutions that benefits specific groups is a bad idea. I’m not speaking of anti-discrimination amendments, of course. Just stuff that says “this group can get more of this than anyone else because reasons.”

      • dr. fancypants

        My California ballot just arrived today. The ballot includes 17 state initiatives, 24 city/county propositions (SF), and one “district” initiative. How the hell does any human being with a full-time job develop a meaningful opinion on 42 voter initiatives?

        • Warren Terra

          I hear ya. I read newspaper endorsements and am predisposed to reject initiatives. All in all, an hour considering my votes every couple of years is actually not excessive, but it’s not easy. And I know that a lot of people – especially people who don’t vote by mail – mark a ballot without knowing anything about lower-profile initiatives and downballot and local offices.

  • Captain Oblivious

    The Beasties have a molestation timeline up.

  • keta

    Ho-boy:

    Donald Trump believes his ploy at the Oct. 9th presidential debate to invite three women who claim they were assaulted by former president Bill Clinton — Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones — has left Hillary Clinton “shaken” and helped unify Republican voters behind his embattled campaign.
    So he’s doubling down on the strategy, which his advisers believe will make his opponent toxic and depress turnout among a key demographic group — young women — Clinton is counting on to win. A senior Trump adviser says the campaign will soon bring forward new accusers: “Women are coming to us who have been groped or sexually abused by Bill Clinton.”

    This is their winning strategy. This is their backs-against-the-wall, clock literally ticking down, hail Mary last-gasp best option. Okay, well, let’s hear from one of “the best” in the Trump circle:

    At a Tuesday fundraiser, Trump declared himself “unshackled” and seemed eager to go back on the offense. With the prospect of additional Clinton victims coming forward, an adviser said, “We’re gonna go buck wild.”

    Ride ’em fucking cowboy, as the Republicans all gather at the Circle-Jerk Ranch. Yee-haw!

    • Warren Terra

      If any new Bill Clinton accusers arise, I’m torn: I’m reluctant to use the “why didn’t they come forward sooner” argument, because it’s usually a terrible argument and often people don’t come forward unless they think it’s vitally important and they think there will be a supportive response – but the case of Bill Clinton is a bit different, because arguably those conditions were met twenty years ago, and some accusers did go forward. But on yet another hand, I have no right to say those conditions were met twenty years ago, and sufficiently, and any actual victims might not have been ready even so …

      • Halloween Jack

        The question in my mind is why they think that it’s justified to continue to press these charges (and assign Hillary Clinton roughly the same amount of blame) in the service of electing someone who has admitted to the same conduct, more or less.

    • Peterr

      Trump is also doubling down on the “I’ll lock her up” comments from the debate, now including “and her lawyers, too.

      You’d think that someone who owned a casino would know when to fold ’em instead of constantly doubling down. No one is buying his bluffs any more.

      • wjts

        Someone who owned a successful casino, sure.

        • Judas Peckerwood

          Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.

      • keta

        It looks more and more like we’re all going to witness Trump Pique Peak in these last few weeks of the campaign. There’s a TPP I can really get behind.

      • Captain Oblivious

        Trump’s done. He’s even lost John Yoo. Yeah, that John Yoo.

        • howard

          omg!

        • Warren Terra

          Making that decision must have been torture.

          PS the linked article has Yoo criticizing Trump … but not saying he’s not voting for him.

          • vic rattlehead

            Yeah, how long did Hillary have to crush his testicles to get him to say that?

          • Origami Isopod

            Making that decision must have been torture.

            Harrumph.

        • Nick056

          “If you are a Republican or a conservative, you think that special prosecutors are unconstitutional,” Yoo said, adding that the idea would have the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “rolling in his grave.”

          Ah hahaha.

          Fuck off, John.

          • tsam

            Shirley you meant Fuck Yoo

          • NonyNony

            Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “rolling in his grave.”

            I was just reminded that Antonin Scalia is still dead.

            Thanks John Yoo!

    • pseudalicious

      I believe all the women who accused Bill Clinton. But obviously I’m going to vote for Hillary. And the fact that Trump thinks, “I know you are but what am I?” is the response to everything, including rape, is as nauseating as it is unsurprising.

      Maybe, by the time my youngest nieces and nephews are of voting age, we won’t have any rapists within spitting distance of the White House anymore! Maybe!

  • Emma in Sydney

    I can’t even. It feels like the whole world is holding its breath, waiting for you guys to sort this out. It’s almost time to start agreeing with Conor Friedersdorf.

  • Warren Terra

    Reposting what I put in the other shoestorm post’s comments:

    People has another shoe dropping, and this one’s impacting like it fell from orbit:

    In the early 2000’s I was assigned the Trump beat for PEOPLE magazine. For years I reported on all things Donald. … We had a very friendly, professional relationship.
    ….

    We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds, he was pushing me against the wall, and forcing his tongue down my throat.

    ….

    I decided to keep the keep the [spa massage] appointment. I was running late, and rushed to the spa with my luggage in tow. I found my designated therapist in a panic.

    “I’m so, so sorry,” I apologized, “Can we do 30 minutes and I’ll pay you for the whole hour?”
    “Never mind that. Mr. Trump was here waiting for you!”
    “What? Where?”
    “Here. In the massage room. Waiting for you. He waited 15 minutes, then had to leave for a meeting.”
    “But why was he here?” I asked. “Is he coming back?”
    The therapist shrugged. I lay on the massage table, but my eyes were on the doorknob the entire time. He’s going to show up and this guy’s going to let him in with me half-naked on a table. I cut the session short, got dressed, and left for the airport.

    Back in my Manhattan office the next day, I went to a colleague and told her everything.

    ….

    I asked to be taken off the Trump beat, and I never interviewed him again.

    So: high-profile accuser. Detailed, evocative story. At least one person was told the story the next day and can confirm it’s not a recent invention. And a change in career trajectory that supports the tale.

    Trump can’t drop out, but if this shoestorm continues – as seems likely it will – I don’t see how he persists.

    • howard

      i can only think of 3 things: a.) trump is so id-laden that he literally doesn’t remember his own actions; b.) trump is so used to getting away with it that he figured he could get away with saying “never” on sunday night; c.) trump is even stupider than i think he is.

      as josh marshall rightly pointed out, trump said it sunday, which would make wednesday the likeliest day for media follow-up since they had to hear from trump abusees, validate the story, and then write and edit it, and it appears that papers across the country took the challenge.

      • Humpty-Dumpty

        I’m going with c) based on Trump’s Razor – to again reference Josh Marshall.

        • howard

          in this particular case, i have to assume that the stupidity was that he couldn’t imagine anyone could track anyone down.

          it seems not to have crossed his mind, by the write-ups we’re seeing, that he would so enrage his victims that they would speak right up, although it seemed obvious to the rest of us….

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

            I see the stupidity as having two facets. First, I don’t think he can really conceive of any woman not being uncontrollably attracted to him, thus there wasn’t any abuse, they “all wanted it”.

            Second, and unfortunately less stupid, he’s gotten away with it for roughly half a century, and thus figures he can continue to get away with it for the rest of his life.

            • vic rattlehead

              I don’t think he can really conceive of any woman not being uncontrollably attracted to him, thus there wasn’t any abuse, they “all wanted it”.

              I’m not surprised that a narcissist is incapable of understanding the concept of consent. Or he understands it intellectually but doesn’t see what the big deal is. That seems to be a common one unfortunately.

          • so-in-so

            Recall his response to the Machado allegation: “Where’d you find that?”.

      • howard

        btw, i guess he didn’t actually say “never,” he said “no, i have not” to cooper’s query as to whether he had “ever done those things” (grope without consent, kiss without consent).

        • Captain Oblivious

          One thing that jumps out about all this to me is that in many of these cases, he was doing this in public or in front of other people or even on camera. Cosby at least got his victims alone.

          Trump isn’t just a serial sexual predator. There is something even more seriously wrong with him. It’s as if he has utterly no common sense or ability to consider the potential consequences of his actions.

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

            Even his admirers/Stockholm syndrome victims all say he has absolutely no filters and says out loud whatever thoughts flick through his mind.

            I’m not a medical professional but I think that’s a separate problem from his sociopathy or whatever you want to call it.

            Bonus question- who is in worse shape psychologically, Trump or Giuliani?

          • Nick056

            Trump comes off as a fairly classic workplace harasser writ yuge, at least in these stories. The sudden kissing, the groping, the lingering, the completely erroneous belief that either no one cares or no one would ever discuss it or report it afterward. It’s important to know that actually adheres to a pretty typical pattern. Yes, Trump is even more insulated from reality, even more narcissistic, but the template is there.

      • Peterr

        You left out one choice:

        d. all of the above: id-laden, privileged, AND stupider than you think.

        • howard

          yes, i suppose i should have listed that one, because it’s undoubtedly the correct answer!

      • Hells Littlest Angel

        I used to know a compulsive liar. They are very, very strange creatures.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          I get the sense that a compulsive liar has some motivation to lie.

          Trump, on the other hand, I think is genuinely indifferent to whether something is true or not, and will literally say whatever he thinks will benefit him most at that moment.

  • Peterr

    Trump’s proclamation that “I don’t even know her” about at least one of the women coming forward sort of proves the point that he views women as things, not people.

    • Warren Terra

      The People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff was at the least a frequent associate. So was Jill Harth.

      The other women accusing Trump of physical interference (that I can at the moment recall) were I think unknown to him (though some were relatively high-profile beauty pageant contestants), but there are a lot of still-anecdotal reports of Trump being extremely crude about the bodies of other high-profile women and women he knows personally – destined to be more than anecdotes if those missing Apprentice recordings ever show up.

      • Peterr

        The one that I saw was Temple Taggart, a former Miss Utah, and MSNBC reported a breaking news denial that said he didn’t know her.

        Quite frankly, that part I believe. I believe he simply felt so entitled to do what he wanted to any beautiful woman, telling himself that they all wanted him in their hearts because he was a rich stud, that he rarely bothered learning a name.

    • Seitz

      Also makes it hard for the Clintons to load the audience with Trump’s grope victims at the next debate, since he won’t actually remember who any of them are.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      “I don’t even know her”

      is in an odd way an improvement from the Billy tape where he refers to the woman as “it”.

      • Trump calls himself a “skin man”. He is in fact a “It rubs the lotion on its skin man”.

  • Mike in DC

    By my count, the number of alleged victims is up to 8, including:
    1 ex-wife, 1 business partner’s wife, 1 business woman traveling in first class, 1 woman working in Trump tower, 1 woman visiting mar a lago, 2 beauty pageant contestants and 1 magazine reporter. And we’re only 3 days out from Trump’s denial on Sunday night. The next debate is 7 days away.

    • howard

      in particular, i can’t imagine that no one has contacted the wapo.

    • Captain Oblivious

      I’m predicting no next debate. Trump’s already talking his way out of it.

      • Mike in DC

        Dropping out of the debate = conceding the election formally. It makes him look even guiltier than he does now. And he basically loses his last best opportunity to change the game.

        • vic rattlehead

          Oh, the village loves them some debate. He will pay for that one. The media beatings will continue.

          Maybe Johnson can take Trump’s place then. Give him a great opportunity to reveal how clueless he is.

      • howard

        i have said from the start that i couldn’t imagine trump doing all 3 debates…

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        Offset, at least in part, by it being hosted by FOX*.

        * initially mistyped it as FIX and had to think about whether to change it or not.

        • I wonder what the orders from Barad-dûr are this time to the moderator? The Murdochs are not idiots and know Trump is toast. The position will be close to Ryan’s, save the downballot. So hard on Trump the slimeball man, easy on Trump the Republican standard-bearer.

    • Peter T

      If I were Hillary, I’d think about refusing to share a platform with Trump. Does she shake hands with the creep?

      • Does she shake hands with the creep?

        Oh, she certainly should—while conspicuously double-gloved.

  • randy khan

    Honestly, the best part of the Times story is that they somehow got him on the phone to get his denial and threat to sue if the story ran. Any professional campaign would make sure that no reporter could get through to the candidate on a story like this, but this is Trump, so of course he took the call.

    And the threat to sue is pretty amusing. The reporter probably had trouble holding off on the belly laugh until the call was over.

    • vic rattlehead

      For such an allegedly great negotiator he seems to get played like a fiddle an awful lot.

    • Peterr

      I think the campaign had no choice. The NYT calls and says “We’ve got two women who came to us with stories about being groped, they gave us people whom they told about it when it happened and they verify that they were told these things, and these women are willing to put their names to the story. You have a choice: (a) you let me talk to Trump, to hear from him what his side of the story is, or (b) we tell our readers that he was too cowardly to speak to us. And if you choose (b), I suggest you make sure your next of kin is on record somewhere before you tell him about your choice.”

      A professional campaign may not like it, but they’ll put the boss on the phone with this one every time.

  • djw

    Aaaand we’ve got the birth of the armrest truthers.

    • veleda_k

      Jet fuel can’t melt armrests!

  • Hells Littlest Angel

    Let’s ease up on Little Gloves. With all his talk about stamina and strength, he is inevitably going to suffer a stroke or heart attack pretty soon. I’d prefer that it happened on or shortly after 11/8.

    BTW, I’m not wishing anything fatal on him. But unable to speak and partially paralyzed would be a good look for him.

  • Warren Terra

    CBS is apparently reporting the Trump campaign did no opposition research on their own candidate, and so doesn’t really know what’s coming beyond what Trump can tell them.

    Even so: he faced 16 opponents in the primary, and while some – Jim Gilmore, say – were just happy to be there, several of the others were well funded and were surrounded by eager hordes of slavering campaign consultants. Surely some of those opponents would have done opposition research on him? They can’t all have been so utterly certain of Trump’s implosion that they didn’t bother at all?

    And: if they did have files on his foibls – what happened to those? It would serve the party to donate them to the RNC, or to thee Trump campaign. But they clearly didn’t. Can you imagine Jeb Bush or someone is currently sitting in a comfortable office chair someplace, thumbing through a dossier and lifting their glass in a mock toast to Trump?

    • brugroffil

      Better question than the oppo: why wasn’t the press doing it’s job?

      • Nobdy

        Ever since the news became a profit center instead of a public service (which it used to be to some extent) the press HAS done its job.

        Chase ratings.

        The Trump rise was great ratings.

        The Trump implosion is great ratings.

        Better for ratings to ride the rollerocaster than nip his ridiculous candidacy in the bud.

        If you mean “Why didn’t the corporate media serve the public interest” well, umm, it’s 2016. T

        • Warren Terra

          The Trump Implosion would have been great ratings any time in the year, though. If they were sitting on all this stuff, at least one of them would have used it.

          • so-in-so

            Some of them had some of this – until you get a critical mass and some “trigger” like Trump’s own comments on the tape, the individual stories don’t, I assume, carry enough weight on their own. Now we see stories that appeared on this individual outlet or that web site suddenly going mainstream because the narrative exists to support them, and they support the narrative.

      • howard

        a point i have made several times to [email protected].

        i recommend a polite note along just those lines – that the times devoted column feet to non-stories like the clinton foundation and has done next to no digging on trump at all, allowing itself to be heavily scooped by one single reporter with a notebook at the wapo.

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          and it seems to me that the NY Times should have had to do less actual digging than any other paper just because he’s on *their* turf

          • Warren Terra

            David Cay Johnston, who was at the Times for a decade or two, had enough to write a whole book on it, some of it from his time writing for newspapers in New York. If people at the Times didn’t know about all this stuff, they certainly knew people who did. They’ve got no excuse.

            • so-in-so

              Maybe they were still counting on invites to Trump parties.

    • HuffPo reported in February that none of the Republican candidates did opposition research on him. They may have attempted to start after that article was written, but by that point it was almost certainly already too late.

      • Gizmo

        This is just sad. The basic outlines of his creepiness (let alone his abundantly-documented business failures and scams) were already known. An intern or two could have dug up plenty.

        • N__B

          I wonder if the R worship of business figured in the oppo research failure.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      I go with the explanation that his major opponents realized that they couldn’t win without his voters, and that if they had brought these horror stories up one of two things would have happened: 1) if Trump lost the nomination, his voters would never have forgiven the candidate who did it; or 2) what we see happening now, that there’s nothing so bad about Trump that would cause his deplorables to stop supporting him, or in many cases, support him even more.

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        ” there’s nothing so bad about Trump that would cause his deplorables to stop supporting him, or in many cases, support him even more.”

        I’d be VERY careful walking on 5th Ave. when Trump is in town, just sayin’

    • vic rattlehead

      It’s ridiculously satisfying to see the right’s epistemic arrogance and especially art of the grift turned against itself and cannibalizing it’s political campaigns. First with Romney, now this.

      The sort of Fox News, or these days internet alt-right echo chamber sealed off from reality combining with the obsession with identifying every possible mark and squeezing every last buck eventually infecting the very people who are hired to put the republicans in power. When your pricey campaign consultants and even the candidate himself is delusional, grifting, or both, it’s really something to behold, like a political ouroboros. In this case, perhaps an elephant swallowing its own trunk.

  • brugroffil

    There’s also the palm beach reporter story out today.

    And the creepy video of him talking about when he’s going to fuck the 10 year old he sees in the lobby.

    And the miss teen USA contestants talking about how he barged into the dressing room while they were changing, something he essentially confirmed on the radio years ago.

  • Joe_JP

    Trump accuses NYT of libel and has his lawyers send them a retraction demand: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cunu4NJXgAAGFiz.jpg:large

    • I look forward to the discovery phase revealing that everything the Times printed is accurate, that Trump assaulted dozens more women who haven’t come forward yet, and ending up in criminal charges against him.

      There is not a nadir for how dumb he can get or how vile he can be.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      if only the Times had the guts to run a remake of the old headline: “Times to Trump: Drop Dead”

      • N__B

        I doubt the Times would riff off a Post headline.

        • efgoldman

          I doubt the Times would riff off a Post headline.

          T’was actually the Daily News.

          • N__B

            My mistake, but my opinion stands.

            IOW, I mean to do that, I meant to do that.

    • Warren Terra

      The good news for Trump as I understand it is that most likely any lawsuit will neither be quashed nor go to Discovery until after the election (and he can’t really let it go to Discovery).

      • Nobdy

        I find it pretty unlikely that there will ever be a lawsuit.

        If there is a lawsuit it will probably be quietly dropped after the election.

        This is just PR and it’s unsophisticated PR aimed at the deplorables.

        • malraux

          Even worse, this is likely pr aimed at trump by his lawyers. He wants them to attack or he’ll find ones who will.

    • Nobdy

      Talk about pointless bluster. The damage done to the New York Times by backing down in the face of this demand would be so catastrophic that they’re better off losing a libel suit (not that they would.)

      Reading that my main reaction is to feel terrible for the poor junior associates at Kasowitz assigned to the Trump beat. In big law you always end up defending clients who might not be the most sympathetic, but most of the time it’s some contractual dispute or you’re actually assisting the government by providing responses to their inquiries and are a necessary part of how enforcement happens in this country.

      Defending Trump in 2016 though…

      I mean I would like to think I would definitely quit, but even if you’re the type to stay that has to be the hellish gig of all hellish gigs.

      Plenty of billable hours though.

      • I hope for the lawyers’ sake that they got paid in advance. They may be representing a horrible human being, but they’re probably not as terrible as he is.

        • Nobdy

          Most of them are probably in their mid to late 20s or early 30s and just trying to pay off their law school loans.

          But the associates will get paid. It’s the partners who might get stiffed, and, well, they knew what they were doing when they took Trump on.

          Probably some value in being in the headlines though. The next time some rich guy gets in trouble they can say “We were the go-to law firm for Trump, and he didn’t go to jail!” So maybe they’ll profit even if he stiffs them, which, given that it’s Trump, seems like an even money bet.

    • Hells Littlest Angel

      Who are his lawyers? Asking for the Central Park Five.

  • Hells Littlest Angel

    “Trump took Tic Tacs, suggested I take them also.”

    Sheesh, he’s even too cheap to spring for roofies.

  • Captain Oblivious
    • keta

      Highly relevant. Thanks for sharing.

  • Nobdy

    The final stop on this sordid trip through the hell of little fingers is for campaign staff to make an accusation.

    Trump surrounds himself with young pretty women in his campaign and there’s a good chance he’s made a pass at at least one of them. I don’t think it will be a ‘name’ like Pierson or Hicks, mostly because they would be killing their careers in GOP politics (if such futures exist) by coming forward, but there might be someone.

    I’m torn between really hoping for it and somehow hoping that Tinyhands kept his…tiny…hands…to himself during the campaign, unlikely as it seems.

It is main inner container footer text