Trump versus New York Times

A New York Times story from Wednesday (US time):

Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following that a letter from Trump’s lawyer:

trumplawyerletternytimes

The New York Times has responded:

cuqivy3wiaapfpy

This probably won’t help Trump turn his ailing campaign around, although he try playing the ‘me against the media ‘ card some more.

Leave a comment

52 Comments

    • So what other attempts at diversion can you come up with? This one looks as lame as usual.

      Reply
      • Klik Bate

         /  14th October 2016

        How would you rate this PG XD

        The NYT has obviously been only all too happy to comply with the Clinton’s requests..

        Reply
  1. Corky

     /  14th October 2016

    The New York Times are Democrat supporting toe-rags. Trump needs to sue. This will be to his advantage on many levels. Better still, sue the women involved and force Democrat benefactors to come to their rescue, then twist that back on them. Its even better again, if nobody comes to these womens rescue. Trump can then magnanimously drop the proceedings once he is president

    Reply
    • Sue women who are saying they’re the victims of sexual assault? I can think of many things wrong with that idea, but to keep it simple…

      That would be a strategical own-goal. It also has a chilling effect (grudgingly I’ll say potentially) for any other women that would seek to speak out about being sexually assaulted. I’ve deliberately not commented on the timing, validity or potential veracity of the allegations. I agree re. NYT for what it’s worth.

      Reply
      • Sure, best to keep an open mind, but there was an allegation filed that Trump had sex with a minor that looked very much like it was a politically motivated fiction.

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  14th October 2016

        Moral considerations aside, I was implying political strategy, and you got it in one:

        ‘ It also has a chilling effect (grudgingly I’ll say potentially) for any other women that would seek to speak out about being sexually assaulted.’

        Reply
        • Joe Bloggs

           /  14th October 2016

          There is an absolutely huge moral (and ethical, and constitutional) consideration to put aside if political strategy takes the path of suing women who would speak out about sexual assault…

          Reply
      • David

         /  14th October 2016

        “Sue women who are saying they’re the victims of sexual assault? I can think of many things wrong with that idea, but to keep it simple…”

        If they are confident in their claims they should be the ones suing. The fact they are not, nor are they making criminal complaints tells you just how strong their claims are. It is perfectly just that someone who has been accused of a crime is permitted to seek the truth in court.

        Reply
        • David

           /  14th October 2016

          This is fun. 3 down votes, yet no one to explain why it is wrong to be allowed to challenge a claim of sexual assault in a court of law. Is it your believe that once an accusation has been made, the accused looses their rights or something? Do you wish for the law in this regard to be changed?

          Reply
    • duperez

       /  14th October 2016

      Just wondering, without any implication of anyone being right or wrong:
      Is it different when Democrat supporting toe-rags are sexually assaulted?
      Is it it different when Democrat supporting toe-rags tell the truth?

      Reply
      • Or, as I saw it put so well on Twitter, why are Trumps accusers = liars and Clintons accusers = honest people? They’re either both wrong or both right?

        By the by, I find the politicisation of sexual assault to be another extreme low.

        Reply
        • Joe Bloggs

           /  14th October 2016

          Ben I so get what you say about the politicisation of sexual assault.

          This is a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behaviour. And we should be questioning every day how individuals believe they have the power and and the privilege and the right to speak like that, not just as the result of an election campaign in another country.

          And it’s not just sexual assault either. Or politicians like Trump or Clinton. It’s every conversation we have in which we criticise someone for being different in some way. It’s the casual racism, the put-downs of people who have ascribe to different social agendas, it’s the classism, all of the ways in which we relocate people who are different into the margins of our society.

          But we can’t avoid politicising subjectivity because it’s part of our nature. When we label someone a migrant man for example, it’s a particularly political classification: for many Aucklanders at least, brings to mind someone of Asian or Middle-Eastern origin, yet we overlook that the majority of migrant men are middle-class, white, and British.

          I dislike that it takes an election campaign to raise our consciousness about politicisation… and I get that you’re using the word in a different context… but y’know, at least we’re having discussions about what’s appropriate and what isn’t.

          Reply
      • Corky

         /  14th October 2016

        ”The New York Times are Democrat supporting toe-rags.”

        Reply
  2. lurcher1948

     /  14th October 2016

    I hope he sues to as it will hurt the orange freak far worse. In their defence they can use anything and there is a lot of nasty shit in the past of this pervert, just saying

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  14th October 2016

      Your saying has been noted, Lurchy. And ignored.

      Reply
      • lurcher1948

         /  14th October 2016

        I love open minds

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  14th October 2016

          We can see that, Lurch, from what you shove into them.

          But the NYT has to prove truth of their own statements or, failing that, limit the damage by saying Trump had no reputation to lose. I don’t think they would manage the last since the video tape was only words and actions speak much louder. So it won’t help them to dredge up new allegations and they would probably be ruled irrelevant although the NYT would try to claim they showed a supporting pattern. Then of course Trump would wheel in a parade of women to claim their experience of him was the perfect gentleman.

          Reply
      • Joe Bloggs

         /  14th October 2016

        Come on Corky Trump has created this mess all by himself, and has been laying the groundwork for many decades it seems

        *Deleted, unnecessary and too low. PG*

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  14th October 2016

          I have no problem defending myself, Pete. If the deleted part was aimed at me personally. If its not acceptable to you and the blogs standards I understand.

          Reply
        • Joe Bloggs

           /  14th October 2016

          Fair enough Pete – Trump’s behaviour is getting to the point where it is too low for this blog, so I’ll self-moderate for the present.

          And no Corky, it wasn’t directed at you.

          Reply
  3. Joe Bloggs

     /  14th October 2016

    There were recent comments on this blog that used FoxNews as their source to direct criticism at Clinton. The following link explains why I give no credence to anything FoxNews says about Clinton. FoxNews was a shill for Trump under Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, a long-time ally of Trumps, and it seems self-evident that noithing has changed with the replacement of Ailes by Rupert Murdoch.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/why-rupert-murdoch-decided-to-support-trump.html

    Reply
  4. Gezza

     /  14th October 2016

    Trump’s speech @ West Palm Beach Florida. I watched it live this morning. He talks about the latest NYT allegations.

    Reply
  5. MaureenW

     /  14th October 2016

    More !!!Breaking!!! non-news. Lucy Lawless – Donald asked me out, I said no, and….. nothing.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11729033

    Reply
    • Klik Bate

       /  14th October 2016

      And I think we’ll see an awful lot more come out of ‘Hollywood’ between now and election day, MW XD

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  14th October 2016

      Gosh, did Lucy ever recover? Is Trump to blame for Zena getting canned?

      Reply
    • Bill

       /  14th October 2016

      Breaking news alright, Woman describes, he came at me like a six armed octopus and to top it off if he’d just stuck to the top half of my body it would have been OK. mmm
      She’s not a marine biologist then and not against a bit of upper body groping either.
      Shock horror he tried his luck with Lucy Lawless, “Trump took his brush-off like a gentleman”. mmm Truly shocking stuff.

      Reply
  6. Corky

     /  14th October 2016

    Are you sure this is Trump? Hell, who is coaching this guy. This chap is on his way to being a demi-god. I know one thing.The patsy who will assassinate Trump, should he become president, is already being lined up.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  14th October 2016

      Are you referring to video speech I just posted Corky?
      I don’t know who is telling the truth or not, but I’ll admit the lady on the plane’s story doesn’t seem very likely to me from what I’ve seen so far.
      And there’s far more coherence in this speech than what we are used to seeing in the debates, for something that seems be off the cuff & not off a teleprompter.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  14th October 2016

        Yes, the video speech. And, yes, the coherence is better. If only he spoke like that during the debates. The rambling has been reined in a little too. But I’m only half way through. Will watch the rest later.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  14th October 2016

          You’ll like it, I’m sure. I thought it was a great performance & I don’t even like the blighter. Some freakin awesome lead guitar on the soundtrack right at the end too, if that counts …

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  14th October 2016

            Guitar licks awesome…… perception is everything. Heavy power-chord guitar means Trumpy is like, with it, with the younger generation. Apart from the comb over and pot belly that is.

            Reply
          • Bill

             /  14th October 2016

            Great vid Gezza Trump sounds like a president and the crowd’s going wild.

            Reply
          • Bill

             /  14th October 2016

            Here’s Obarma admitting funding and training ISIL, I wonder if our troops sent to train forces were involved as well.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  14th October 2016

              Nah that clip’s too short to give any context. Sounded more like a mistaken slip of the tongue than confirmation the US is funding and training ISIL. When you get a clip that short you can’t get any context & you know it’s someone taking the piss or being mischievous.
              http://www.snopes.com/obama-isil-training/

          • Corky

             /  14th October 2016

            I though I faintly recognised the guitar riff. Someone in the Trump camp has a sense of humour.

            Living colour: The Cult Of Personality

            Reply
          • Bill

             /  14th October 2016

            Could be a slip.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  14th October 2016

              Don’t get confused. Of course the US ended up arming ISIS, but that is because they are idiots who couldn’t work out that there aren’t any moderate opposition fighters, that they’ve all been dancing around fighting with and against each other since the uprising started. And the US couldn’t do anything about their allies buying the oil from ISIS because they needed the air bases, and Turkey is soaking up the refos. And the Americans are kind of stuffed there now because the only oppo fighters they could trust were the Kurds, & the Turks, having suddenly made pals of the Turks, are heavily into disliking the Kurds, with arms where necessary. And so Vlad is having a high old time of it saying the Yanks are behind it all, when he knows they’ve just been stupid, because he hasn’t been stupid. Yet.

            • Corky

               /  14th October 2016

              There’s only one thing worse than a nasty piece of work, and that’s a nasty piece of work with brains. I dread the day Russia and China wake up to the fact they could partner up and control the world. That will probably come after an International skirmish where American technology is still proven to be superior.

  7. Gezza

     /  14th October 2016

    Bugger. I mean the Turks have suddenly made pals of the Russians. It’s all very confusing.

    Reply
  8. It used to be that if you were in a position of power that was accorded respect and admiration, say like being the spouse of the US President, then one of the golden rules of conduct by that powerful person was do not descend into the gutter to contest the conduct of a person that you do not respect. Instead you hold yourself above the gutter and don’t enter into a debate with the despised person. Ms Obama by her comments about Trump yesterday, has descended into the gutter with his support team. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the matter, she has immersed herself in the filth with him. In my view she has lost respect, and if she envisages being the second woman and first black woman President, she is doing her premature campaign no favours.

    Reply
    • Klik Bate

       /  14th October 2016

      I think it’s probably wise to be a bit careful with what you say about the ‘First Lady’, BJ ❗

      It was such a shame that the fabulous Joan Rivers died not long after this clip was released of her making particularly nasty remarks about Mr & Mrs Obama……it would have been hilarious to see and hear Joan’s take on the situation as it unfolds today…

      Reply
      • I am not fazed KB about that. If they want to come and get me, they can. They will be the losers. I really don’t believe that the USA has descended to Nazi/Soviet tactics.

        Reply
  9. Zedd

     /  14th October 2016

    maybe there are enough ‘numb-skulls’ in USA to get hair Drumpf over the line.. after all there are enough in NZ to give ‘team key’ 3 terms ! 😀

    Reply
  10. Zedd, there are some that are so blinded by ideology that they can not see the truth straight in front of them.

    Reply
  11. This is what Trump actually said:
    “”Now we address the slander and libels that was just last night thrown at me by the Clinton machine and the New York Times and other media outlets as part of a concerted, coordinated and vicious attack.
    It’s not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment and altogether at the same time as Wikileaks releases documents exposing the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine including 2,000 more emails just this morning.
    These vicious claims about me of inappropriate conduct with women are totally and absolutely false.
    And the Clintons know it, and they know it very well.
    These claims are all fabricated, they’re pure fiction and they’re outright lies. These events never ever happened and the people [who] said them meekly fully understand. You take look at these people, you study these people, and you’ll understand also.
    ‘False smears’
    The claims are preposterous, ludicrous, and defy truth, common sense, and logic. We already have substantial evidence to dispute these lies and it will be made public in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time, very soon.
    These lies come from outlets whose past stories and past claims have already been discredited. The media outlets did not even to attempt to confirm the most basic facts because even a simple investigation would have shown that these were nothing more than false smears.
    Six months ago the failing New York Times wrote a massive story attacking me and the central witness they used said the story was false, that she was quoted inaccurately. She said that I was a great guy. She had great courage – I’ll be honest with you, she was an amazing person and never made those remarks – that I was a great guy and never made those remarks. And when I read the story I was sort of surprised, how could she say that, and she didn’t say it.
    We demanded a retraction but they refused to print it, just like they refused to print the comments from another source who praised me in her book, or the words of another wonderful women who said really nice things about me. They put other statements that she didn’t say, they misrepresented.
    The story was a fraud and a big embarrassment to the New York Times. And it was a big front page story, front page, centre, colour picture, a disgrace. They were very embarrassed. It will be part of the lawsuit we are preparing against them.
    Now today, the same two discredited writers who should have been fired from the New York Times for what they did, tell another totally fabricated and false story that supposedly took place on an airplane more than 30 years ago. Another ridiculous tale, no witnesses, no nothing.
    ‘Already debunked’
    Then there was a writer from People Magazine who wrote a story on Melania and myself on our first anniversary. The story was beautiful. It was beautiful, it was lovely.
    But last week we hear, after 12 years – this took place 12 years ago this story – a new claim that I made inappropriate advances during the interview to this writer, and I asked a very simple question, why wasn’t it part of the story that appeared 12 years ago, why wasn’t it part of the story, why didn’t they make it part of the story?
    I was one of the biggest stars on television with the Apprentice and it would have been one of the biggest stories of the year. Think of it!
    She’s doing a story on Melania who is pregnant at the time, and Donald Trump, our one year anniversary, and she said I made inappropriate advances. And by the way the area was a public area, people all over the place.
    Take a look. You take a look. Look at her, look at her words, you tell me what you think. I don’t think so, I don’t think so.
    But it is amazing, doing a story, a love story, about how great we are together – and by the way we are stronger today than we ever were before which is great – but, it’s a love story, it’s a love story on our one year.
    And if I did that, she would have added that. It would have been the headline, and who would have done that if you’re doing this and you’re one of the top shows on television.
    These people are horrible people. They’re horrible horrible liars. And interestingly, it happens to appear 26 days before our very important election, isn’t it amazing.
    This invented account has already been debunked by eyewitnesses who were there. They were there – the very witness identified by the author has said the story is totally false.
    By the way this is a room that everyone can see in. It’s got glass walls. It’s at Mar A Lago, it’s got glass walls. Why wasn’t it in the story, biggest story of the year.
    This weekend the New York Times published a full page hit piece with another claim from an individual who has been totally discredited based on the many, many, many, emails and letters she has sent to our office over the years looking for work. Donald is great, wanting to go to my rallies.
    But the New York Times, and this was a full op-ed piece, refused to use the evidence that we presented, refused to use it. If they used it, if they would have looked, they would have said oh there’s no story here.
    ‘Third rate journalism’
    Others in the media, which almost surprises me, because they’re dishonest also, were presented with this story by this woman numerous times and they got very excited, but after seeing the evidence that we immediately give them, all of them refused to write the story, there was no story.
    The Times though didn’t want to see it and they just wrote the story. And this was a full page opposite the editorials.
    This is part of a concerted effort led by the New York Times and others. Now the New York Times is fighting desperately for its relevance and its financial survival and it probably won’t even be around in a few years based on its financial outlook which wouldn’t be a bad thing if you want to know the truth.
    But as it winds down its years, and its becoming more and more problematic, its gotten more and more vicious, more and more vile, and even the other mainstream media is talking about the single greatest pile-on in history.
    And all between now and November 8. And you have to see the stories they’ve written – it’s one after another after another and facts mean nothing, third rate journalism. The great editors of the past from the New York Times and others ladies and gentlemen are spinning in their grave.
    I will not allow the Clinton machine to turn our campaign into a discussion of their slanders and lies but will remain focused on the issues facing the American people.
    But let me state this as clearly as I can, these attacks are orchestrated by the Clintons and their media allies.
    The only thing Hillary Clinton has going for herself is the press.
    Without the press, she is absolutely zero. And you saw that the other night in the debate when some people said she made virtually a fool of herself. This is not presidential material, believe me.”

    I can not imagine a person with a guilty conscience being able to make the strong and meaningful rejection of the New York Times articles. His statements are on the record as a complete and decisive denial of the claimed incidents. Can the reporters provide evidence that persuades me that the claimant was indeed on the same flight and sitting in the seat next to him? Can she explain how it is possible for a man to place his hands up her skirt and pat her bottom when she is seated on the plane? Can she explain why she did not ring for assistance from a stewardess? Can she explain why 30 years after the event she now feels so outraged about his behaviour, that she makes the claim at the precise time she did?
    I charge the NYTimes with insulting the intelligence of any intelligent person in the USA and elsewhere. The media should not be allowed to damage a candidate’s credentials during their official campaign period as a matter of principle and the law related to elections must be made clear about this so our and their elections are both free and fair.

    Reply
  12. This is the Wikileaks list of the real powers in the USA who will decide who gets into a Clinton Cabinet if that is the result:

    “To the extent there are any purists left, this should clear up any illusion of who controls the political powers that be.

    Robert Gates Citigroup Larry Summers Rahm Emanuel Elizabeth Warren Timothy Geithner Peter Orszag Robert Rubin Citibank Main Street”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet

    This includes copies of relevant Emails, and makes a good case for showing who the real power brokers are. Talk about cesspits.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to duperez Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s