Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

Then why is it that when you point out the truth, it always comes out angry?

 

I actually consciously try not to ever do that.

 

Ok, if saying that Trump kissing and groping uninvited does not rise to the level of sexual assault, isn't it still sexual harassment? Or are we going to get treated another set of verbal gymnastics explaining how he does not do that either?

 

In a locker room ...

 

He didn't say it was uninvited. That's not "verbal gymnastics." He simply didn't say that.

You are also getting far afield from my initial point, which is that Politico (nor the Washington Post, which has also now gone there) should not write in a straight news story, as an established fact, that Trump "bragged about" or "admitted" to committing "sexual assault."

 

A) No one's said it's not sexual assault (the Billy Bush talking). They're saying it might not have been sexual assault, which is why Politico shouldn't have written it that way.

2) Harassment is something else ... it has to do with the relationship between the principles and the context/locations of their interactions.

In work or similar relationships with employees (or students, in my situation), one could be found to have committed sexual harassment without ever having been in the neighborhood of sexual assault. On the other hand, Handsy Harry could commit sexual assault every time the bar gets crowded, but he couldn't be found to have committed sexual harassment (although I suppose if his victims were employees of the bar and the bar's management never did anything about it, they could be vulnerable to harassment claims).

 

But he did. He admitted to and bragged about a pattern of behavior that could not possibly have led to any other result than numerous sexual assaults. The "I was just groping the air, maybe it's possible every single piece of air I groped wanted me to do it" defense doesn't hold up.

 

When he states, "And they let you do it," a reasonable interpretation is that he is asserting that he obtained consent. Whether or not he find that plausible or not is immaterial. He "admitted" nothing.

 

No reasonable interpretation would attempt to strip that sentence out of all its context. Such an act is inherently unreasonable.

 

What context?

 

The surrounding sentences, the man speaking it, the culture in which the man was raised. Among many other things.

 

I didn't want to side with Dick on the groping argument, but I can't unequivocally discount his line that a straight news story should not declare it to be sexual assault out of hand. What Trump describes does not take a large leap of logic to conclude what he is doing is sexual assault. The fact he says "they let me" does imply consent, but it hinges on his first statement that when he first meets a beautiful woman he has to start kissing them. So he is imposing himself on a woman with something she doesn't want but is taken off guard and doesn't immediately push him away and when he starts going for private parts she is already feeling she cannot say no. His behavior is sexual assault if the woman does not give consent.

That said, in a straight news story, the author should not declare it to be sexual assault. You report his words and what is on the tape. You then contact a women's rights group for reaction and let them say it sounds like sexual assault. You put that quote in there without editorial comment. You allow Trump to refute the claim and that the women were willing participants, but as Democrats decry the actions and even the GOP start to back away from it, there is no need for the reporter to declare it to be sexual assault. There are plenty of people characterizing it as such, you report that is how it is being characterized but make sure you include Trumps assertion that he was allowed. People aren't stupid and will understand how creepy, pervish and disgusting the actions are. They should be allowed to conclude that on their own.