There are several bombastic articles claiming that Donald Trump assaulted women, one on an airplane, one in an elevator and one during interview. I believe they are trolls. Not simply "lies", but provocations created by the Trump campaign to discredit NYT and other pro-Clinton media.
I believe soon these women will appear on stage and say that this was all made up and that the media didn't fact-check them and printed everything they said, despite they were obvious lies.
I believe so because Trump calls them forgeries and threatens with lawsuits. He never did that with previous attacks. He either downplayed them (Miss Piggy), doubled down (not paying tax is brilliant) or fake-apologized (grab them by the ...). But never before he questioned the factual truth in them. Never before he sued media for critical articles. Not to mention that suing media is counterproductive even if you are right, see Streisand Effect. It's even worse now as the lawsuit can't possibly finish before election day, so Trump surely gets the negative attention for "silencing free press like Putin" without the hope of winning before it matters. No, he does that because he knows that he can win the case in days.
Actually, it's not just a random troll against the hostile NYT, but a cornerstone of his last weeks campaign: "Independence day on Nov 8". Revealing these trolls will be crucial elements of his narrative: there is a widespread conspiracy of the elites "and their agenda is to elect crooked Hillary Clinton at any cost, at any price, no matter how many lives they destroy. For them it’s a war, and for them nothing at all is out of bounds. "
I believe soon these women will appear on stage and say that this was all made up and that the media didn't fact-check them and printed everything they said, despite they were obvious lies.
I believe so because Trump calls them forgeries and threatens with lawsuits. He never did that with previous attacks. He either downplayed them (Miss Piggy), doubled down (not paying tax is brilliant) or fake-apologized (grab them by the ...). But never before he questioned the factual truth in them. Never before he sued media for critical articles. Not to mention that suing media is counterproductive even if you are right, see Streisand Effect. It's even worse now as the lawsuit can't possibly finish before election day, so Trump surely gets the negative attention for "silencing free press like Putin" without the hope of winning before it matters. No, he does that because he knows that he can win the case in days.
Actually, it's not just a random troll against the hostile NYT, but a cornerstone of his last weeks campaign: "Independence day on Nov 8". Revealing these trolls will be crucial elements of his narrative: there is a widespread conspiracy of the elites "and their agenda is to elect crooked Hillary Clinton at any cost, at any price, no matter how many lives they destroy. For them it’s a war, and for them nothing at all is out of bounds. "
26 comments:
That would rank among the biggest political mistakes ever made in history. It would also be an incredible mistake on the part of the women bringing forth these allegations.
If Trump, his campaign, a political ally or these women reveal they intentionally leaked false information to the times, they are responsible for the libel occurring. Trump can't sue the Times for Libel he purposefully initiated. Similarly, it becomes a shield for the Times in court against litigation by trump if someone passed them information in bad faith.
You'd never win a civil trial where it was revealed you had setup the person you're suing because the courts require that cases be brought in good faith. It's grounds for dismissal of the case, with prejudice.
Sure, he can't win the lawsuit. But he can win the election by "proving" that the "media conspiration" exists. He can from here dismiss every negative claim on his character as lies and people will not believe journalists anymore.
Even better: what if some of the women are genuine and some are trolls. They all say the same. Some identify themselves as Trump trolls. The others are called by Trump "Clinton trolls". He proved that the media didn't check their stories (otherwise caught the fakes). Result: people didn't believe the genuine women.
I think you're missing the point here: if Trump sets up a series of false allegations against himself, he guarantees a loss of the Woman vote.
@Rob: he already lost the Woman vote due to his former sexist misconduct. He is now after the Bernie-males who are strongly anti-establishment and want to picture himself as the one victim of the same establishment and one they can trust to be personally motivated to dismantle.
> he already lost the Woman vote due to his former sexist misconduct.
It was never in play. Look at the polling history; Clinton was consistently ranked higher by women than ANY Republican candidate (aside from one outlier involving Ben Carson in Nov 2015). Women would like to see a female president within their lifetimes. Some (i.e. the PUMA crowd) feel that Clinton has been unfairly denied a shot at the top office.
Even if Trump had never done anything misogynistic, women would still feel somewhat hesitant to vote for him - because it feels like voting against progress.
Donald Trump is on camera talking about a 10 year old girl, saying "I will be dating her in 10 years"
he is also on record on the Howard Stern show saying:
""I'll tell you the funniest is that I'll go backstage before a show and everyone's getting dressed. No men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in, because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. … ‘Is everyone OK?' You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that."
Do you think that these are made up as well?
No, they are true. They are obnoxious. They are also legal, unlike grabbing someone's tits without consent.
My father lived in America long enough to observe that elections there were no more matters of serious debate and reflection than they were in his native Guyana - where the candidates toured the villages buying drinks for everyone, who then voted for the most popular guy (whatever his politics).
It comes to something when the election for leader of the world's mightiest nation ends up being a choice between a serial liar and a racist, sexist bigot.
Democracy, American style; gotta love it.
Billionaire surrounded by thousands of beautiful women has no sexual harassment problems for years, until October surprise time. Yep, sounds legit (cough).
I dont know what to believe anymore. Its obvious some of these women are fake. I mean first class doesnt even have arm rests for example. Others sound factual. If this is a play by donald its risky. I rather think that the constant trickle of wikileaks is what is going to push the narrative in the next week or so. In the end i think who ever is in the news more with bad coverage/scandels is going to be the loser. Im also suprised the third party canadate hasnt pulled off more voters who are disillusioned by either party. It would be pretty interesting if this turns into a three way race. At any rate this next debate looks like its going to be pretty fun. Isnt it sad that the us is going the way of idosyncracy movie? I shutter to think wgat the next election will bring. I can imagine the very real possibility of a Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho for President.
I think the first thing to do is to look at the accusers the NY Times has found. The first, Leeds, the first class passenger who was groped over 30 years ago. She reported the incident to four other people, who the NY Times also spoke to and corroborated the story. And did you see the interview? She is as genuine sounding as she can be.
The second, Brooks, was allegedly kissed outside an elevator in Trump tower. She reported the incident to her sister immediately, and presumably the Times followed up with the sister, as they specifically mention the sister.
Now you can say, sure, maybe the witnesses are lying too. But at this point it would be hard to cast aspersions on the Times. They did their due diligence. If Trump announces he paid off like 10 people to lie to the times in a coordinated and convincing fashion, it just makes Trump look even worse - a transparent attempt to muddy the waters, and in fact it would give the non-troll accusers more credibility.
At that stage, whatever Trump does is irrelevant. Those that have decided to vote for him will do no matter what he does and says to get elected. For all the others, the only anti-establishment vote is Gary Johnson.
The Commission for Presidential Debates made sure to fulfill the role for which it had been created, i.e. protect the two-party systems by making sure the libertarians could not be given air time to debate. But social medias are giving a shot for Johnson to upset this race, if enough anti-establishment voters rally behind Gary Johnson.
Or, you know, Occam's Razor: the women are telling the truth and Trump is a serial sex pest heading for a historic defeat that will make McGovern's campaign look competitive.
Seanas: surely not. There is no possible way that so many women independently just jump out of nowhere after decades on the same few days. While my tinfoil IS a tinfoil, any other tinfoil is good.
The less tinfoil tinfoil is that these women appeared during the last 5 years, the media silenced them and kept them under the rug just to release them as October surprise.
Sex allegations is the oldest trick in the book (because it works) which is why it was used by FBI against Martin Luther King and people are still around today who believed he raped white women.
The Trump-Clinton circus is a classic symptom of an empire in decline, and a completely predictable reaction against decades of neoliberal theory that forgot the masses of people don't just sit quietly and take what's given, but occasionally do set up guillotines and behead the elites. Thankfully this is only a metaphor....for now.
It is the same story as with Bill Cosby. For the last hundred years, he has assaulted/drugged women as he wished and no one openly made a fuss about it as Cosby's reputation was like a wall blocking any chance of winning a lawsuit against him.
After the first woman wnet public, more followed and the trickling of witnesses/victims became a river...
Same with Trump. He is so full of himself and his money has bought him enough trophy wives/whores and his money has always made women available for him.
He was in no position to attack Bill Clinton and, again, we have never heard from successful lawsuits against Bill Clinton. Or do you know more?
Executing a campaign that falsely victimizes himself in order to prove that the press will tell lies about him, while he stands behind the lies the press is reporting is so counterproductive, tinfoil will not suffice....
I can understand that you want Trump to win and from the point of Trump probably not waging new wars, I can understand that, but I doubt that Clinton will act more harshly thatn GWBjr. The American people are fed up with wars that do not seem to have any effect, except negative ones for the states....
The situation is really critical. Both candidates are neither worthy nor apt to fit the role of president.
One of the main arguments the pro Trump voters continually try to tell, is that he would run the US like a business as he is a competent businessman. Bad news: A world power is not a business and trying to lead a society like a business will only result in very poor results.
Besides, Trump is no an above average businessman. If he was that successfull, he would brag about it, but I fear that his wealth accumulation of the last thirty years is below the average of similar sized wealths... A lot of his businesses failed and while that can be excused with "he has his hands in zillions of projects, not all can be the new iPhone", the facts remain that he is not known for extraordinary intelligent economic decisions... It is just show and a poor one.
It is basically the same show Clinton puts on when she tries to prove that she is not a heartless robot. She then plays her role of a compassionate human being so poorly that she cold always be an example of how to robot...
"I believe so because Trump calls them forgeries and threatens with lawsuits. He never did that with previous attacks. "
Trump sues anyone at the drop of a hat, this is something he brags about (He forgets to mention he loses or never takes it further). He calls everything negative anyone has said about him a forgery.
He has threatened media outlets with lawsuits throughout the campaign.
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/
Gevlon, dont You think that from a perspective it dosent matter who gonna win election in USA? Hillary serves estabilishment and Trump IS estabilishment. Whoever wins elections, they will serve interest of wealthies elite. Its really just choosing a figurehead from my pov.
The reason you have not been hearing it for years is that it's tough to prove an old case like this. Look how long it took for Bill Cosby.
The women had no real way of hurting Trump prior to now, that he is running. Before, he could just outlawyer them, and at the end of the day, who cares if some rich celebrity groped some women. Now that he is running for president, there is a court of public opinion that cares.
Not being able to win the lawsuit is just one part of it.
Hiring actors, getting them prepared and setting them to work takes time. It reeks of preparation and the sort of behind the scenes political maneuvering that his backers all claim to hate. It the careful, calculated move of a person who's done things like opposition research or any sort of preparation. The question becomes when did he know, how long was he preparing and how did he find out? That sort of kills that whole cantankerous outsider thing he's got going for him because it would so go against that image.
Along that same vein, even for people who don't pay that much attention, It's going to look not like a response to the video coming out but preparation for women coming forward about with claims of unwanted sexual advances, groping or even sexual assault. It would essentially be admitting that there are women out there who have such claims because he's actually done those things, and he knew he had to be prepared for it.
why didn't bill get sued? some Clinton insiders point to Hillary sending the nastiest dirtest POS investigator who destroyed the women before they even got off the podium. Some say she just ok'd the idea of learning about these women. I remind folks that state troopers were also reported as saying they delivered the gov (bill) to these women or brought the women to him.
I disagree that the only two choices are a sexist and POS who has no problem telling the families of the fallen (with the coffin in sight) a lie about why their loved ones died for political gain. Some people doubt me but I suggest you look at her book "we knew within 24's hours it was a planned terrorist attack" and her speech when Stevens and vile rat came off the plane "a youtube video sparking spontaneous protests" 10 days later. I will grant her this she never directly linked those deaths to the video by saying "because of X your loved one is dead" but she certainly implied by giving that speech in that circumstance.
We do have Libitarian and commie/socialist who each better alternatives.
This is really kind of an obvious move by Trump. It doesn't require any sort of insider knowledge and only maybe a couple of months of preparation.
Furthermore, this move might have been facilitated by the ongoing phenomenon of women simply accusing men of rape in USA in the hope of getting some benefits out of it while the accused party is too scared to take it to court. Very easy to take advantage of for Trump.
I'm not a US citizen. And I really don't care who become what. TTIP will be done no mater who. US military dominance will be there no matter what. NATO east rollout will also happen no matter what. propaganda changes a bit but in the end it's business as usual maybe the flavour changes a bit.
In all the trump hype and clinton idiocy the main theme remains "he speaks truth to power". And I can't recall that happening in a looong time. he admits using every loophole in the system that could have been fixed on the spot. but it didn't because people that where in power like clinton didn't, so they and their buddies made big mulah. Trump doesn't care, because he will profit either way.
Also on an other front: political correctness and "feelings over facts" is at it's hight of power. they have hollywood, colleges and universities, politicians and big corp. If Trump would win this "movement" could be crushed at it's peak and hopefully will not return for a long time and maybe free speech wouldn't be buried soon(tm).
Gevlon, this is nothing new. Remember Dominique Strauss-Khan, who was accused of sexual misconduct prior to the IMF elections?
"Why now?" is a good question, but the answer is pretty mundane. "Because now is effective." on two counts. First off, they're in the public eye aspiring to the highest prestige leadership position on the planet. If you want justice, revenge, or even to be taken seriously, there's no better time. Everything will be dissected and discussed, so if there's anything truthful about the accusations, they will come to light, whereas in any other case it could be buried under mountains of papers by rich guy's lawyers, or a small little present to the media will keep the story out of the TV and papers, you know it.
Secondly, whoever does sexual misconduct doesn't do it once and done forever. They do to many other people, but some are afraid to accuse because they think they might not win and not be taken seriously, or even because they think it was a mistake and happened once, so they excuse. But at a time such as this when accusations start pouring in, some people who might have otherwise lacked courage to speak will also accuse.
Of course, it could also be a crafted media story, but...I don't really see how it will help him. There could be also a third reason: Some people will lie for attention/money/blackmail. It happened before.
Between crafted media story for help/ lying for attention / actually true, I think that the last choice is most likely, but the second one could be true too. I don't actually think that your theory altogether makes that much sense.
The mainstream press actually goes through the motions of fact-checking, so this trick wouldn't work on them: If it was an obvious hoax, then they'd catch it, and the headline would be "Presidential Candidate Caught Trying to Sabotage His Own Campaign." If it was a complicated hoax with involving multiple seemingly-unrelated conspirators, then when the truth came out, the headline would be, "Presidential Candidate Confesses to Using Donor Funds to Sabotage His Own Campaign."
That said, this kind of hoax does work on the lunatic fringe press. They don't bother to do fact-checking; they just print everything they hear that validates their prejudices. Here's an example from this week, of the lunatic fringe press getting fooled by a basic Twitter hoax.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ohio-secretary-of-state-tennessee-gop-voter-fraud-twitter-jokes
Post a Comment