Ken "Popehat" White weighed in on the matter to chastize people outraged by the move with an argument that misses why people are outraged.
Short version - because courts have taken a broad view of the Westfall Act (which says that you can't sue a federal office holder for acts done in the course of their duties) in cases like CAIR v. Ballenger (where a Republican dealing with the fallout of his wife leaving him said it was because their DC home was across from CAIR's offices, calling CAIR a 'terrorist organization', leading CAIR to sue, only for Ballenger to successfully invoke the act because responding to the press is part of his job,) this move has a plausible chance of succeeding. Furthermore, getting 'outraged' at this doesn't solve the problem, because people need to push for reforming the Westfall Act.
To which my response is that the problem isn't the Act, but the willingness of the courts to entertain absolutely ludicrous interpretations of "doing one's duties" (and honestly, Ballenger isn't even the worst case - that honor goes to the goose of a former South Dakota representative who used the Act to kill a wrongful death lawsuit against him for drunkenly running over a motorcyclist.) Furthermore, it's the same problem that has led to shit like qualified immunity - courts are too willing to turn a blind eye to misconduct by people they are aligned to as long as the have the barest of legal fig leaves. Instead of complaining about us being outraged, perhaps White could take a more critical eye at his own profession.
Edit: it was a SD rep who killed the motorcyclist in a hit and run - something that became relevant again when the SD AG did the same thing a few days ago.
Ken "Popehat" White weighed in on the matter to chastize people outraged by the move with an argument that misses why people are outraged.
Short version - because courts have taken a broad view of the Westfall Act (which says that you can't sue a federal office holder for acts done in the course of their duties) in cases like CAIR v. Ballenger (where a Republican dealing with the fallout of his wife leaving him said it was because their DC home was across from CAIR's offices, calling CAIR a 'terrorist organization', leading CAIR to sue, only for Ballenger to successfully invoke the act because responding to the press is part of his job,) this move has a plausible chance of succeeding. Furthermore, getting 'outraged' at this doesn't solve the problem, because people need to push for reforming the Westfall Act.
To which my response is that the problem isn't the Act, but the willingness of the courts to entertain absolutely ludicrous interpretations of "doing one's duties" (and honestly, Ballenger isn't even the worst case - that honor goes to the goose of a former North Dakota representative who used the Act to kill a wrongful death lawsuit against him for drunkenly running over a motorcyclist.) Furthermore, it's the same problem that has led to shit like qualified immunity - courts are too willing to turn a blind eye to misconduct by people they are aligned to as long as the have the barest of legal fig leaves. Instead of complaining about us being outraged, perhaps White could take a more critical eye at his own profession.
Given how he's a free speech maximalist, I doubt he'd ever turn critical of his particular field of study. That would mean having to call into question his own basis of understanding the law and that doesn't happen too often without some serious event impacting them first.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
+2
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
In what world would we ever have a not-rich president?
In what world would we ever have a not-rich president?
This one actually, iirc? I want to say we did get one president who wasn't rich. Once. And that's why they get a pension for the office or something? Might be conflating some things.
Edit: Also, I think there's a difference in how rich rich was at different times in our history. The modern wealth of people like Zuckerberg is pretty rare historically I think (at least, without being a head of state, so there's some blurred lines and such I guess)
In what world would we ever have a not-rich president?
This one actually, iirc? I want to say we did get one president who wasn't rich. Once. And that's why they get a pension for the office or something? Might be conflating some things.
Grant and Truman were destitute.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
In what world would we ever have a not-rich president?
This one actually, iirc? I want to say we did get one president who wasn't rich. Once. And that's why they get a pension for the office or something? Might be conflating some things.
Grant and Truman were destitute.
Grant and Truman for sure, Washington married up and didn't really have much of his own. Clinton came from nothing (Hillary came from borderline rich means) and they made their money off of their time in government.
Obama would have been upper middle class at best (with him and Michelle coming from middle class backgrounds) if he hadn't written two books right before being elected.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
There is a White House Counsel that can do that while the President is in office
The White House Counsel is specifically for the Office, not the person of the President. (I know this because Trump was treating them as his personal lawyer.) The right way to handle this would be a Pro Bono lawyer.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
This is also a bad example, because the DOJ isn't really defending Trump in the sense of providing legal services, it's just jumping in front of a particular type of bullet that it's impervious to.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Also our electorate would punish whatever political party tried such clearly bullshit tacitcs.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
If you think that 400k is enough to pay for lawyers to defend against multiple law suits not sure but like... after the other expenses that the Presidency has its barely a drop in the bucket. In fact we have another recent example of this. The Clintons were not rich until after the Presidency. They left the Presidency with a net of about ~ 9.5 million dollars in debt* as a result of legal fees...
Sure they got through it. But they got through it in a way that is systematically dangerous to our democracy. And the fact that they would be lent that money without let’s say... clear non-political ways of repaying it is dangerous in and of itself, even if they used speaking and book fees to do so.
*they had 2m in assets... which was mainly the house they bought on credit by being underwritten by a democratic political operative... and in addition to the debt from that they had an additional ~10m of unpaid legal fees of ~13M total legal fees.
Edit: like... its clear Barr does not have the interests of American democracy in his mind. This isn’t a policy that was done because he believes that the President should be free from the interests of private individuals who might leverage debt against them. He is doing it because making the claim is an effective delaying tactic.
But maybe when the dust settles, we should keep the idea that the DOJ defends the President from civil suits
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
Politicians generally base their campaigns around their personal image, so losing court cases that are salacious would be seen as detrimental to any campaign, therefore protecting their image is a campaign expense.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
Politicians generally base their campaigns around their personal image, so losing court cases that are salacious would be seen as detrimental to any campaign, therefore protecting their image is a campaign expense.
Which is irrelevent in this circumstance owing to the fact that perported event is from multiple decades prior to his presidential aspirations.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
Politicians generally base their campaigns around their personal image, so losing court cases that are salacious would be seen as detrimental to any campaign, therefore protecting their image is a campaign expense.
Which is irrelevent in this circumstance owing to the fact that perported event is from multiple decades prior to his presidential aspirations.
No it is not irrelevant.
Any work done to maintain a politician’s image is indistinguishable from a campaign contribution to help them get elected.
This has already been shown with the National Inquirer buying story exclusives to bury them to be an in effect campaign contributions even if the story has nothing to do with the election or occurred prior to running for office or holding it.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
Politicians generally base their campaigns around their personal image, so losing court cases that are salacious would be seen as detrimental to any campaign, therefore protecting their image is a campaign expense.
Which is irrelevent in this circumstance owing to the fact that perported event is from multiple decades prior to his presidential aspirations.
No it is not irrelevant.
Any work done to maintain a politician’s image is indistinguishable from a campaign contribution to help them get elected.
This has already been shown with the National Inquirer buying story exclusives to bury them to be an in effect campaign contributions even if the story has nothing to do with the election or occurred prior to running for office or holding it.
Which means their campaign can pay for it, and the politician's personal wealth is irrelevant.
In what world would we ever have a not-rich president?
This one actually, iirc? I want to say we did get one president who wasn't rich. Once. And that's why they get a pension for the office or something? Might be conflating some things.
Grant and Truman were destitute.
Grant and Truman for sure, Washington married up and didn't really have much of his own. Clinton came from nothing (Hillary came from borderline rich means) and they made their money off of their time in government.
Obama would have been upper middle class at best (with him and Michelle coming from middle class backgrounds) if he hadn't written two books right before being elected.
George Washington was incredibly wealthy and inherited a lot from his father before he even met Martha. He ended up probably the richest President in US history.
In what world would we ever have a not-rich president?
This one actually, iirc? I want to say we did get one president who wasn't rich. Once. And that's why they get a pension for the office or something? Might be conflating some things.
Grant and Truman were destitute.
Grant and Truman for sure, Washington married up and didn't really have much of his own. Clinton came from nothing (Hillary came from borderline rich means) and they made their money off of their time in government.
Obama would have been upper middle class at best (with him and Michelle coming from middle class backgrounds) if he hadn't written two books right before being elected.
George Washington was incredibly wealthy and inherited a lot from his father before he even met Martha. He ended up probably the richest President in US history.
IIRC the Washingtons also got a lot of their wealth by essentially running a scam, whereby they bought the debt of people subjected to indentured servitude, forced them to move to the colonies, and then took the land those people were granted by the Crown.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
Politicians generally base their campaigns around their personal image, so losing court cases that are salacious would be seen as detrimental to any campaign, therefore protecting their image is a campaign expense.
Which is irrelevent in this circumstance owing to the fact that perported event is from multiple decades prior to his presidential aspirations.
Legally, it does not matter when the rape/sexual assault occurred, it matters when the alleged defamation-by-denying-that-happened occurred, which was while Trump was president. It doesn't matter if he's attacking her character for something that happened twenty years or twenty minutes ago.
There are two very separate arguments here about legality and morality. Morally, it matters that Trump probably did commit a variety of horrible sex crimes, and that he is effectively using a nuclear option to eliminate a case he was defending personally until now, and that anybody defending him is almost certainly going into it knowing they're doing a hatchet job on behalf of a guilty man. Legally, though, all that matters is "when did Trump defame the defendant" and "does defending against defamation count as part of his job duties."
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
Politicians generally base their campaigns around their personal image, so losing court cases that are salacious would be seen as detrimental to any campaign, therefore protecting their image is a campaign expense.
Which is irrelevent in this circumstance owing to the fact that perported event is from multiple decades prior to his presidential aspirations.
Legally, it does not matter when the rape/sexual assault occurred, it matters when the alleged defamation-by-denying-that-happened occurred, which was while Trump was president. It doesn't matter if he's attacking her character for something that happened twenty years or twenty minutes ago.
There are two very separate arguments here about legality and morality. Morally, it matters that Trump probably did commit a variety of horrible sex crimes, and that he is effectively using a nuclear option to eliminate a case he was defending personally until now, and that anybody defending him is almost certainly going into it knowing they're doing a hatchet job on behalf of a guilty man. Legally, though, all that matters is "when did Trump defame the defendant" and "does defending against defamation count as part of his job duties."
Then again, Barr's already on the hook for covering up/helping his boss fuck the entire country, so...
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.
Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.
The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.
the DoJ maybe should take the lead on civil suits brought against the President?
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.
Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.
The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.
None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.
Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
Also, Jesus Christ.
Lawyers for Trump said Dorris’s version of events did not stand up to any scrutiny and had there been any inappropriate behaviour by Trump outside of the bathroom within the VIP box, there would have been numerous witnesses.
Trump’s lawyers said it seemed incredible that Dorris would voluntarily choose to be in the vicinity of Trump, at the US Open and the Versace memorial, in the days following the alleged assault. They said Binn had raised similar questions about her account. Trump’s lawyers also questioned why Dorris sat next to Trump at the Versace memorial, when she could have sat the other side of Binn.
They said Dorris had never raised the allegations with a law enforcement agency or to Trump, and said the timing of the claims so close to the November presidential election suggested they might be politically motivated.
The Guardian first heard about Dorris’s accusation against Trump via a model agent she had worked with in Chicago, in whom she had confided. Dorris first shared her allegation with the Guardian in confidence 15 months ago, but was unsure about going public. She recently decided she was ready to take that step, in part to be a role model to her daughters, who are now in their teens.
Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.
Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.
Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.
There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.
Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.
Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.
"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Why anyone would doubt that Donald Trump regularly sexually assault(ed/s) women is beyond me.
Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.
Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.
Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.
There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.
Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.
Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.
On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.
Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks? Why, against all clear and available information, do people still act shocked when it is their local youth pastor, or the victims SO, or parent, who gets arrested or accused of this?
I mean, I understand how a narrative, once in place, is hard to weed out; I just don't understand the actual benefit this misconception of sexual assault is supposed to provide? It feels so increasingly rare these days that anyone doesn't have someone they know in their social circle, and more likely their immediate extended family, that has been victims of sexual assault. How does this image of a perp in the bushes still exist? It's like cancer, who doesn't know someone anymore who hasn't either had cancer, died from cancer, or is currently suffering from it? It'd be like still believing that you only get cancer because of your sins...which I guess...fucking hell, we truly have barely stepped one foot out of the caves. EDIT: Do people accuse others who have cancer detected in a late stage of being responsible for the cancer? Do they say "well, why did you wait so long to check?" Why are we so god damned stupid?
Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.
Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.
Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.
There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.
Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.
Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.
On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.
Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks? Why, against all clear and available information, do people still act shocked when it is their local youth pastor, or the victims SO, or parent, who gets arrested or accused of this?
I mean, I understand how a narrative, once in place, is hard to weed out; I just don't understand the actual benefit this misconception of sexual assault is supposed to provide? It feels so increasingly rare these days that anyone doesn't have someone they know in their social circle, and more likely their immediate extended family, that has been victims of sexual assault. How does this image of a perp in the bushes still exist? It's like cancer, who doesn't know someone anymore who hasn't either had cancer, died from cancer, or is currently suffering from it? It'd be like still believing that you only get cancer because of your sins...which I guess...fucking hell, we truly have barely stepped one foot out of the caves.
We put more weight in anecdotes than data, and even before Social Media the news loved shoving those anecdotes in your face.
Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks?
Because people have to feel safe in their daily life. It's much more recomforting to believe the threat is remote and not someone you trust. If only because you actually have to trust people to, you know, live.
It's human nature. We're afraid of the unknown. We don't want to think of our neighbors as threats.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.
Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.
Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.
There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.
Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.
Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.
On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.
Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks? Why, against all clear and available information, do people still act shocked when it is their local youth pastor, or the victims SO, or parent, who gets arrested or accused of this?
I mean, I understand how a narrative, once in place, is hard to weed out; I just don't understand the actual benefit this misconception of sexual assault is supposed to provide? It feels so increasingly rare these days that anyone doesn't have someone they know in their social circle, and more likely their immediate extended family, that has been victims of sexual assault. How does this image of a perp in the bushes still exist? It's like cancer, who doesn't know someone anymore who hasn't either had cancer, died from cancer, or is currently suffering from it? It'd be like still believing that you only get cancer because of your sins...which I guess...fucking hell, we truly have barely stepped one foot out of the caves. EDIT: Do people accuse others who have cancer detected in a late stage of being responsible for the cancer? Do they say "well, why did you wait so long to check?" Why are we so god damned stupid?
Because it is widespread enough that people do not want to risk their friends or even their own questionable behavior getting labeled as harassment or assault. After all, they're a good and decent guy, not a rapist. Similar to racism. I would never sic a german shepherd on a black guy, even if blacks are all lazy criminals, aside from Jamal at work, he's one of the good ones. And I'd never jump out of the bushes at a jogger, or even catcall someone like Jill in accounting when she wears that low cut top and I just can't stop staring.
Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.
On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.
A cursory Google'ing has the basic stats from RAINN (Rape Abuse & Incest National Network) around 20% of rapes are committed by a stranger, 6% by more than one person or the victim cannot remember, and the remaining 3/4 are by an acquaintance, friend, spouse, date/partner, etc.
Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks?
Because people have to feel safe in their daily life. It's much more recomforting to believe the threat is remote and not someone you trust. If only because you actually have to trust people to, you know, live.
That's what I don't understand. How does it feel more safe to believe you are subject to completely random attacks you can't control, as opposed to having knowledge of where the actual threat is, and since it's what you know, where you know, and who you know, you have a level of control over it, that can give you actual defense and safety?
Her account was also corroborated by several people she confided in about the incident. They include a friend in New York and Dorris’s mother, both of whom she called immediately after the alleged incident, as well as a therapist and friends she spoke to in the years since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she later told the Guardian.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.
Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.
Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.
There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.
Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.
Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.
On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.
Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks? Why, against all clear and available information, do people still act shocked when it is their local youth pastor, or the victims SO, or parent, who gets arrested or accused of this?
I mean, I understand how a narrative, once in place, is hard to weed out; I just don't understand the actual benefit this misconception of sexual assault is supposed to provide? It feels so increasingly rare these days that anyone doesn't have someone they know in their social circle, and more likely their immediate extended family, that has been victims of sexual assault. How does this image of a perp in the bushes still exist? It's like cancer, who doesn't know someone anymore who hasn't either had cancer, died from cancer, or is currently suffering from it? It'd be like still believing that you only get cancer because of your sins...which I guess...fucking hell, we truly have barely stepped one foot out of the caves. EDIT: Do people accuse others who have cancer detected in a late stage of being responsible for the cancer? Do they say "well, why did you wait so long to check?" Why are we so god damned stupid?
Because it is widespread enough that people do not want to risk their friends or even their own questionable behavior getting labeled as harassment or assault. After all, they're a good and decent guy, not a rapist. Similar to racism. I would never sic a german shepherd on a black guy, even if blacks are all lazy criminals, aside from Jamal at work, he's one of the good ones. And I'd never jump out of the bushes at a jogger, or even catcall someone like Jill in accounting when she wears that low cut top and I just can't stop staring.
Yeah, I guess I can understand that. Not understand in the sense that it actually makes any sense; just that people find it scarier to think that someone they know could be that danger. Even in our house, there's been times when I drew a line with things the kids can do and my wife is like "yeah, but we know them", and after a minute of intense staring, she understands my point, given that she deals with this stuff all the time in her professional life...she just doesn't make the connection all the time with how it might apply to her own life. It was a fight the first time, after leaving our religion, I said "if you are going to take the kids to church, you need to promise me that under no circumstances whatsoever are they to be "interviewed" or otherwise meet with anyone, including their peers, alone, without you or an extremely trusted parent, present". Despite how frequently it's in the news here that some fuckstick bishop or youth leader is arrested on assault charges, no one wants to admit there's an actual problem.
It's also why when (EDIT: Parents of) friends of our kids aren't comfortable with me (as a stay at home dad) being the one home alone with them, I am not offended at all. They're being responsible parents, and to them, I'm just some dude. I don't take it personally, I just try to make it work so that my kids can have good social lives, and hopefully the parents will realize I'm not a threat. But if they don't? That's their right, and I don't blame them their concerns.
Posts
Short version - because courts have taken a broad view of the Westfall Act (which says that you can't sue a federal office holder for acts done in the course of their duties) in cases like CAIR v. Ballenger (where a Republican dealing with the fallout of his wife leaving him said it was because their DC home was across from CAIR's offices, calling CAIR a 'terrorist organization', leading CAIR to sue, only for Ballenger to successfully invoke the act because responding to the press is part of his job,) this move has a plausible chance of succeeding. Furthermore, getting 'outraged' at this doesn't solve the problem, because people need to push for reforming the Westfall Act.
To which my response is that the problem isn't the Act, but the willingness of the courts to entertain absolutely ludicrous interpretations of "doing one's duties" (and honestly, Ballenger isn't even the worst case - that honor goes to the goose of a former South Dakota representative who used the Act to kill a wrongful death lawsuit against him for drunkenly running over a motorcyclist.) Furthermore, it's the same problem that has led to shit like qualified immunity - courts are too willing to turn a blind eye to misconduct by people they are aligned to as long as the have the barest of legal fig leaves. Instead of complaining about us being outraged, perhaps White could take a more critical eye at his own profession.
Edit: it was a SD rep who killed the motorcyclist in a hit and run - something that became relevant again when the SD AG did the same thing a few days ago.
Given how he's a free speech maximalist, I doubt he'd ever turn critical of his particular field of study. That would mean having to call into question his own basis of understanding the law and that doesn't happen too often without some serious event impacting them first.
Imagine a not rich President. Now imagine that they have to defend themselves from every civil suit brought against them. Now imagine how Republicans would weaponize that. If that seems outlandish it really should not given that it has potentially happened already with Clinton.
This doesn’t mean the president should be immune but having the state handle defense prevents politically motivated cases from having impact on the presidency while also allowing the normal course of justice to unfold.
On the other hand this is clearly naked corruption by Barr. There is neither need nor precedence for this change and it was not pursued at an appropriate time. The only purpose it has is to induce delay into the process.
This one actually, iirc? I want to say we did get one president who wasn't rich. Once. And that's why they get a pension for the office or something? Might be conflating some things.
Edit: Also, I think there's a difference in how rich rich was at different times in our history. The modern wealth of people like Zuckerberg is pretty rare historically I think (at least, without being a head of state, so there's some blurred lines and such I guess)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Vote Vermin Supreme!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Grant and Truman were destitute.
Grant and Truman for sure, Washington married up and didn't really have much of his own. Clinton came from nothing (Hillary came from borderline rich means) and they made their money off of their time in government.
Obama would have been upper middle class at best (with him and Michelle coming from middle class backgrounds) if he hadn't written two books right before being elected.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
If the cases are politically motivated it should be easy to prove they are without merit and be dismissed with prejudice. Plenty of AmLaw 10 firms would do that Pro Bono for the PR.
The White House Counsel is specifically for the Office, not the person of the President. (I know this because Trump was treating them as his personal lawyer.) The right way to handle this would be a Pro Bono lawyer.
This is also a bad example, because the DOJ isn't really defending Trump in the sense of providing legal services, it's just jumping in front of a particular type of bullet that it's impervious to.
Also our electorate would punish whatever political party tried such clearly bullshit tacitcs.
Right?
Which would likely be considered an illegal in kind campaign contribution.
If you think that 400k is enough to pay for lawyers to defend against multiple law suits not sure but like... after the other expenses that the Presidency has its barely a drop in the bucket. In fact we have another recent example of this. The Clintons were not rich until after the Presidency. They left the Presidency with a net of about ~ 9.5 million dollars in debt* as a result of legal fees...
Sure they got through it. But they got through it in a way that is systematically dangerous to our democracy. And the fact that they would be lent that money without let’s say... clear non-political ways of repaying it is dangerous in and of itself, even if they used speaking and book fees to do so.
*they had 2m in assets... which was mainly the house they bought on credit by being underwritten by a democratic political operative... and in addition to the debt from that they had an additional ~10m of unpaid legal fees of ~13M total legal fees.
Edit: like... its clear Barr does not have the interests of American democracy in his mind. This isn’t a policy that was done because he believes that the President should be free from the interests of private individuals who might leverage debt against them. He is doing it because making the claim is an effective delaying tactic.
But maybe when the dust settles, we should keep the idea that the DOJ defends the President from civil suits
I'm not sure I see how, considering it would be a personal matter rather than campaign related.
I'm pretty sure that lawyers would break off their pinky toe to have an opportunity to represent the president pro bono, particularly if it means that they can counter sue.
Politicians generally base their campaigns around their personal image, so losing court cases that are salacious would be seen as detrimental to any campaign, therefore protecting their image is a campaign expense.
MWO: Adamski
Which is irrelevent in this circumstance owing to the fact that perported event is from multiple decades prior to his presidential aspirations.
No it is not irrelevant.
Any work done to maintain a politician’s image is indistinguishable from a campaign contribution to help them get elected.
This has already been shown with the National Inquirer buying story exclusives to bury them to be an in effect campaign contributions even if the story has nothing to do with the election or occurred prior to running for office or holding it.
MWO: Adamski
Which means their campaign can pay for it, and the politician's personal wealth is irrelevant.
George Washington was incredibly wealthy and inherited a lot from his father before he even met Martha. He ended up probably the richest President in US history.
IIRC the Washingtons also got a lot of their wealth by essentially running a scam, whereby they bought the debt of people subjected to indentured servitude, forced them to move to the colonies, and then took the land those people were granted by the Crown.
Edit: from this Renegade Cut video essay:
Legally, it does not matter when the rape/sexual assault occurred, it matters when the alleged defamation-by-denying-that-happened occurred, which was while Trump was president. It doesn't matter if he's attacking her character for something that happened twenty years or twenty minutes ago.
There are two very separate arguments here about legality and morality. Morally, it matters that Trump probably did commit a variety of horrible sex crimes, and that he is effectively using a nuclear option to eliminate a case he was defending personally until now, and that anybody defending him is almost certainly going into it knowing they're doing a hatchet job on behalf of a guilty man. Legally, though, all that matters is "when did Trump defame the defendant" and "does defending against defamation count as part of his job duties."
Then again, Barr's already on the hook for covering up/helping his boss fuck the entire country, so...
Pro-bono work is also gift, which, while the President is not prohibited from receiving, is similarly an issue as with debts. It doesn’t really make it better if the President is is indebted and then forgiven or if they accept millions of dollars of legal work for free.
The campaign could pay for it, though that again, has other issues (can they do so after the campaign is over and there is no campaign to run? How are funds held in reserve disbursed etc etc. which have their own corruption issues.
None of which seem as corrupting as placing the President above the bounds of the Law while in office. Especially for non-official acts.
Another one.
I assume Trump will claim he never met her despite all the photos.
Also, Jesus Christ.
The lawyers are all "How could he do this a room away from other people and get away with it" and "If this happened, why did she still meet with him in the following days." Because misogyny.
Yep, it's no different to the "If she didn't want to have sex, she would have fought back" style thinking. That shock it's happening, fear of being hurt further, shock or fear of consequences following, or any number of other outcomes, are all dismissed, because in the past, they've been dismissed.
Same with the refusal to come forward immediately that the Kavanaugh/Ford and Trump/Carroll allegations suffered from publicly. "Why didn't she come forward then?". Have you SEEN how women are treated when they accuse someone of rape? THAT'S FRIKKIN' WHY. Well, why did they come forward now? For any number of reasons, and in the high profile cases, quite possibly because the threat of letting that shithead into power (I believe that was Christine Blasey Ford's reasoning) is more important to them than the personal consequences of doing so.
There are several possible reasons why this woman might have responded the way she did after her alleged attack. Shouldn't change how the charges are handled.
Sadly, it probably will. And based on how it's played out before, it'll probably work.
Even if Trump isn't a "hiding in the bushes, rape at knifepoint" rapist, and regardless of the facts or outcome of this case, there's no doubt, zero, in my mind he's sexually assaulted women, for which he'll never face consequences.
Why anyone would doubt that Donald Trump regularly sexually assault(ed/s) women is beyond me.
On that last point, it's always struck me as idiotic that image even exists. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the vast majority of sexual assaults perpetrated by people who know their victim? Either a direct family member or neighbor (broadly speaking, that might mean someone in someones church congregation, etc)? And not someone hiding in the dark onto unsuspecting victims? It feels like the idiot image of gun violence victims, that "criminals" who shoot people are random muggers on the street, and not, you know, reality, where it is primarily themselves, or someone else in the home or immediate social circle.
Why do people keep pretending that these things only happen via random unexpected attacks? Why, against all clear and available information, do people still act shocked when it is their local youth pastor, or the victims SO, or parent, who gets arrested or accused of this?
I mean, I understand how a narrative, once in place, is hard to weed out; I just don't understand the actual benefit this misconception of sexual assault is supposed to provide? It feels so increasingly rare these days that anyone doesn't have someone they know in their social circle, and more likely their immediate extended family, that has been victims of sexual assault. How does this image of a perp in the bushes still exist? It's like cancer, who doesn't know someone anymore who hasn't either had cancer, died from cancer, or is currently suffering from it? It'd be like still believing that you only get cancer because of your sins...which I guess...fucking hell, we truly have barely stepped one foot out of the caves.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
We put more weight in anecdotes than data, and even before Social Media the news loved shoving those anecdotes in your face.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Because it is widespread enough that people do not want to risk their friends or even their own questionable behavior getting labeled as harassment or assault. After all, they're a good and decent guy, not a rapist. Similar to racism. I would never sic a german shepherd on a black guy, even if blacks are all lazy criminals, aside from Jamal at work, he's one of the good ones. And I'd never jump out of the bushes at a jogger, or even catcall someone like Jill in accounting when she wears that low cut top and I just can't stop staring.
A cursory Google'ing has the basic stats from RAINN (Rape Abuse & Incest National Network) around 20% of rapes are committed by a stranger, 6% by more than one person or the victim cannot remember, and the remaining 3/4 are by an acquaintance, friend, spouse, date/partner, etc.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
This number increases to 93% of juvenile victims knowing the perpetrator.
That's what I don't understand. How does it feel more safe to believe you are subject to completely random attacks you can't control, as opposed to having knowledge of where the actual threat is, and since it's what you know, where you know, and who you know, you have a level of control over it, that can give you actual defense and safety?
EDIT:
Yeah, I guess I can understand that. Not understand in the sense that it actually makes any sense; just that people find it scarier to think that someone they know could be that danger. Even in our house, there's been times when I drew a line with things the kids can do and my wife is like "yeah, but we know them", and after a minute of intense staring, she understands my point, given that she deals with this stuff all the time in her professional life...she just doesn't make the connection all the time with how it might apply to her own life. It was a fight the first time, after leaving our religion, I said "if you are going to take the kids to church, you need to promise me that under no circumstances whatsoever are they to be "interviewed" or otherwise meet with anyone, including their peers, alone, without you or an extremely trusted parent, present". Despite how frequently it's in the news here that some fuckstick bishop or youth leader is arrested on assault charges, no one wants to admit there's an actual problem.
It's also why when (EDIT: Parents of) friends of our kids aren't comfortable with me (as a stay at home dad) being the one home alone with them, I am not offended at all. They're being responsible parents, and to them, I'm just some dude. I don't take it personally, I just try to make it work so that my kids can have good social lives, and hopefully the parents will realize I'm not a threat. But if they don't? That's their right, and I don't blame them their concerns.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand