Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PCIntern

(25,656 posts)
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 09:24 AM Feb 19

I would like to remind us older folk and tell the younger folk

that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden, by all accounts including that of Mr Darden, developed a sexual relationship during their prosecution of O.J. Simpson for a double homicide.

This can easily occur when two people are in close proximity for lengths of time. I personally know all about that process. Many times over, I might add.

So of course, the issue here for the pretend-to-be-less-than-sanctimonious is that untruths may have been stated as to when sexual intercourse occurred. Penetration, of any type, is the line we as a society utilize to define the act of sexual Congress, as it were. It becomes a whole different story when an individual is penetrated in any of his or her orifices.

In fact, the Defense does not care one whit about the potential dissembling, it wants the public to envision these two individuals, naked, sweating, thrusting, etc. I guarantee you that if this couple were Caucasian, this would not be the issue, or if it were, it would have been presented in a more arcane fashion.


Oh…are you upset that she may have hired him because he may or may not have been a sex partner? Look at any administration in any city, state, town, or hamlet and when you are told the inside story of how so and so was hired, it’s the same old same old.

I’m really tired of faux outrage concerning sex and sexuality. The Reagan crowd began using it wholesale with Falwell and his ilk in the late 1970’s and it has exploded into a massive Pearl-clutching by the hypocrites who are banging each other out of wedlock, asking casual acquaintances to join in threesomes, purchasing sex-products delivered always in plain brown boxes. The porn addiction among these individuals is extreme and all the while they act as though this is why the country is going to Hell in a hand basket.

I shall end this tirade with a direct quote from, believe it or not, my mother, who once casually remarked in her 80’s that “…what these assholes need is a real orgasm.” Truer words never spoken.

63 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I would like to remind us older folk and tell the younger folk (Original Post) PCIntern Feb 19 OP
When pukes say look over here, look over there. pwb Feb 19 #1
Great perspective. Basic LA Feb 19 #2
OK. So now MOMFUDSKI Feb 19 #3
She didn't say stuff like that often PCIntern Feb 19 #9
My wife said something similar regarding terrorists Danascot Feb 20 #61
You're a lucky man! PCIntern Feb 20 #62
But I'm not a terrorist Danascot Feb 20 #63
I'm a little surprised claudette Feb 19 #4
I agree but PCIntern Feb 19 #6
. . . and concupiscence concupisces! PTL_Mancuso Feb 19 #27
I have read that two other candidates turned the position down. FalloutShelter Feb 19 #8
Wade was third True Blue American Feb 20 #55
Considering her affair has nothing to do with the case... Think. Again. Feb 19 #10
If that were claudette Feb 19 #40
I think that's the question that everyone is asking. Think. Again. Feb 19 #44
Because venial peopl such as Republicans and Trump* lawyers soldierant Feb 19 #49
So what? paleotn Feb 19 #22
No. Of course not claudette Feb 19 #39
All the lawyers in the Georgia bar have replied, if questioned, thatin Georgia it isn't a violation. soldierant Feb 19 #50
Wonder if Willis considered how her bowel movements would be perceived. Hermit-The-Prog Feb 19 #23
Certainly not the same thing claudette Feb 19 #41
Perhaps a reporter should investigate to confirm no one else was on the toilet. Hermit-The-Prog Feb 19 #45
Except claudette Feb 19 #47
Is there evidence of sexual harassment? Hermit-The-Prog Feb 19 #48
I had forgotten that about Clark and Darden. FalloutShelter Feb 19 #5
Your mother was right, Goddessartist Feb 19 #7
I'd like to remind EVERYONE that if the lead prosecutor in GA were a white MALE (or probably even hlthe2b Feb 19 #11
Absolutely. PCIntern Feb 19 #12
I guess I'm not quite understanding tavernier Feb 19 #13
I understand... PCIntern Feb 19 #15
Ok, just read a synopsis and am caught up. tavernier Feb 19 #19
Hope so too!!! PCIntern Feb 19 #20
You're a fast reader! I'm in your shoes. LeftInTX Feb 19 #30
I opened the most recent press link tavernier Feb 19 #38
u forgot about the pool boy. mopinko Feb 19 #14
OMG LOL BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #21
Oh jeez...Forgot about him and I forgot his name. Wasn't he the "uncooperative witness"? LeftInTX Feb 19 #24
Kato Kaelin BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #28
lol. i meant falwell's pool boy, but... mopinko Feb 19 #33
Ha ha BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #36
Fani Willis wins the day with her quote: BarbD Feb 19 #16
And that mountain grammy Feb 19 #17
Solid proof, again, that one should always listen to their mother. jaxexpat Feb 19 #18
I know the OJ case happened in 1995 or so. LeftInTX Feb 19 #25
Right, and the outcome of the trial was a verdict of not guilty for the defendant. Barry Markson Feb 19 #26
No... PCIntern Feb 19 #32
Thank you for stating it so well wendyb-NC Feb 19 #29
It's the never ending story. WinstonSmith4740 Feb 19 #31
KnR Hekate Feb 19 #34
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 19 #35
No argument there PCIntern Feb 19 #37
I think MorbidButterflyTat Feb 19 #42
Have any of those sanctimonious lawyers bothered to ask Chump FakeNoose Feb 19 #43
At worse - this is a "code of conduct" issue, and I am not really sure that it is. But I would like to point out PaulRevere08 Feb 19 #46
Apparently, in Georgia, if both spouses are lawyers they can represent opposing sides in a trial. Vinca Feb 19 #51
Well, Clark and Darden lost a "slam dunk prosecution." Just saying. Silent Type Feb 19 #52
Causal fallacy much? dpibel Feb 20 #57
Nope. And I don't read by pointing at -- and mouthing -- each word. Silent Type Feb 20 #58
So sad dpibel Feb 20 #60
Home run orangecrush Feb 19 #53
And Geraldo. Had an affair with Denise True Blue American Feb 20 #54
Recommended. H2O Man Feb 20 #56
Lol at your Mom's Wisdom. Cha Feb 20 #59

pwb

(11,318 posts)
1. When pukes say look over here, look over there.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 09:28 AM
Feb 19

Trump is the criminal here no matter what diversions they try. This is just more puke theater and production.

claudette

(3,640 posts)
4. I'm a little surprised
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 09:32 AM
Feb 19

that Willis did not take into consideration how her affair would be perceived in such a high profile IMPORTANT case

True Blue American

(17,996 posts)
55. Wade was third
Tue Feb 20, 2024, 12:55 AM
Feb 20

The exGoveror testified. Told her he had body Guards and did not want them again.

Wade made less money after he took the job. That silly blonde Prosecutor was trying to save, Trumps butt.

soldierant

(6,966 posts)
49. Because venial peopl such as Republicans and Trump* lawyers
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 06:04 PM
Feb 19

can make anything go to a hearing if they want to.

We probably could too, but we have too much respect for the law and, if I may be a little dramatic, rightweousness.

claudette

(3,640 posts)
39. No. Of course not
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 04:11 PM
Feb 19

But it makes it more difficult to stop the attacks by magats. And. From what Chuck Rosenberg said on TV, it’s a violation to have such a relationship with a subordinate. That’s why I said that.

soldierant

(6,966 posts)
50. All the lawyers in the Georgia bar have replied, if questioned, thatin Georgia it isn't a violation.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 06:09 PM
Feb 19

Some went so far as to cite married couples working together on the same case. It probably is a violatio in many, maybe most states, and perhaps federally. But this is a Georgia case being tried in Georgia under Georgia law.

The thing to hope for is that Judge McAfee can make the whole issue look stupid enough to avoid a mistrial or give fuel to an appeal. It appears, not just to me, but it's been said in various places, that he may well be trying to do just that.

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,574 posts)
45. Perhaps a reporter should investigate to confirm no one else was on the toilet.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 05:10 PM
Feb 19

Unless it affects her job, it ain't nobody's business but her own.

claudette

(3,640 posts)
47. Except
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 05:30 PM
Feb 19

some government offices frown on a sexual relationship with a subordinate according to one pundit on TV

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,574 posts)
48. Is there evidence of sexual harassment?
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 05:40 PM
Feb 19

Does their work relationship make a romantic or sexual relationship inherently harassment?

hlthe2b

(102,562 posts)
11. I'd like to remind EVERYONE that if the lead prosecutor in GA were a white MALE (or probably even
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 10:19 AM
Feb 19

a black MALE), this would not even be an issue discussed. PERIOD

It is blatant racist sexism layered and effused with ugly attitudes toward women who do not meet fascist controlling XIAN men's concept of "chaste." And there have long been nasty racist depictions of ALL black women as hypersexualized.

Every damned bit of this is at play and there is no damned way it would have been discussed if the prosecutor were male.

I'm not saying I don't think Willis was foolish not to have taken this into account and deferred from giving anyone anything to use against her (as would have been the case for me in her shoes), but it would appear that she's fed up with this and refused to bow to those who perpetuate such racist misogyny.

tavernier

(12,428 posts)
13. I guess I'm not quite understanding
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 10:27 AM
Feb 19

the point of your post.

Are you saying that she hired him because he looked to be good in bed? Or is it that Republicans want us to think that?

Or perhaps I’m missing the point entirely. Haven’t had my coffee yet.

Also, because of my job, I have not watched much of the proceedings. Was there actually a request for the definition of intercourse or penetration?

My understanding was that Ms. Willis did well on the stand and the whole thing ended up pretty much a nothing burger. Serves me right for not paying close attention to something I assumed was, as usual, just a hyped up charge by republicans.

PCIntern

(25,656 posts)
15. I understand...
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 10:31 AM
Feb 19

Perhaps some catching up is in order -I might suggest you scroll up the GD forum for the past few weeks and read the posts here. I’d say to start about three weeks ago.

tavernier

(12,428 posts)
19. Ok, just read a synopsis and am caught up.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 11:16 AM
Feb 19

It really does sound like a circus. I hope the judge has good sense.

LeftInTX

(25,813 posts)
30. You're a fast reader! I'm in your shoes.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 12:07 PM
Feb 19

All I know is that the affair should have been an issue that could have been presented in an objective manner. We do have work place rules and if the affair violated a workplace rule, it violated a workplace rule. End of story. People have sex.

The whole hearing should have taken a day. Can't believe it's still going on???

If they are trying to be salacious or try to make it "over the top", sensational, sex driven, tabloid fodder etc, shame on them.

It's all about Trump and his defense team, which has millions. They are trying to discredit the prosecution.

tavernier

(12,428 posts)
38. I opened the most recent press link
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 01:24 PM
Feb 19

I really wasn’t so much interested in the salacious parts but rather the bottom line. The judge still makes the determination, and it seems to be from what I saw of bits and pieces that he won’t be bamboozled. Let’s hope.

mopinko

(70,388 posts)
14. u forgot about the pool boy.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 10:28 AM
Feb 19

giving a lot of those hard earned $$ to cover up their ‘indiscretions’.

LeftInTX

(25,813 posts)
24. Oh jeez...Forgot about him and I forgot his name. Wasn't he the "uncooperative witness"?
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 11:39 AM
Feb 19

Heck, I didn't even know Darden and Clark had an affair.
It was 1995 and I remember workplace rules changing after the Anita Hill hearings and more so after the Monica Lewinsky thing...

I remember Gary Hart with his yacht who ran for president and how an affair ruined his presidential candidacy.

The 70's and 80's, were pretty much: Anything goes at the work. It was kinda disgusting if you ask me.

I'm too young to have worked in the 60's, where I assumed it was worse....

BumRushDaShow

(130,044 posts)
28. Kato Kaelin
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 11:55 AM
Feb 19

But yeah, what an era!

And not just Gary Hart but more recently, John Edwards, who made tabloid history.

I think Watergate scuttled a lot of the '70s stuff and "distraction TV" pretty much got the scuttlebutt ball rolling via long-form "reality" TV shows in the '80s.

mountain grammy

(26,676 posts)
17. And that
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 11:00 AM
Feb 19

Really took a swing at “republican values”. She was something else on that stand! Loved every minute.

LeftInTX

(25,813 posts)
25. I know the OJ case happened in 1995 or so.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 11:54 AM
Feb 19

I believe alot of workplace rules developed after the Anita Hill hearing, so they would have been in place at this time.

I didn't even know about Darden and Clark having an affair. However, the media could have turned it into a black and white circus.

OTOH...OJ was not a Republican President. OJ did not have Fox News on his side. He didn't have Newsmax, the Heritage Foundation, CPAC etc. on his side...


Most white people thought OJ was guilty. The media thought he was guilty. Most black people thought it was a set up.

I thought OJ was guilty and privileged.

In the end, OJ was acquitted.

I remember Marcia Clark looking frazzled at times and I remember the prosecution making some mistakes.

I remember the "N" word, racist cop who found the gloves. (He got a gig on Fox News) The defense did a good job and the defense attorney who tried on the shrunken gloves....

I didn't have cable, so I couldn't watch the circus.

___________

Once again, I don't have cable. If they are trying to make this affair salacious, then shame on them.
I can see making it an issue, but it should have been no more than a one day issue. (Sorry I'm super busy with the local Democratic primary and don't have time to follow the case).
Trump has his dirty defense team driving this.
OJ had his defense team. I don't remember the OJ team making a deal about an affair between Clark and Darden, but maybe they thought it wasn't necessary. They were able to get a jury seated that favored OJ, they were able to pull the glove stunt and showed that a lead cop was racist.

In OJ's case, the defense the convinced jury that the case against OJ was about race.
OJ, the defendant won.

 

Barry Markson

(280 posts)
26. Right, and the outcome of the trial was a verdict of not guilty for the defendant.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 11:55 AM
Feb 19

Even though a majority of Americans figured he did the deed.
What's your point?
Are you saying that the 19 defendants will be found not guilty due to Fani's behavior?

PCIntern

(25,656 posts)
32. No...
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 12:18 PM
Feb 19

What I’m saying is that THIS STUFF HAPPENS and is between consenting adults and this is irrelevant to the case.

WinstonSmith4740

(3,060 posts)
31. It's the never ending story.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 12:12 PM
Feb 19

The hypocrisy is mind numbing. My grandfather worked in the Senate dining room literally 100 years ago. His take on them? "They're nothing but a bunch of liars, deviates, and thieves."

Now flash forward to the 80's. the height of Reagan and the "Moral Majority". I had a young man who worked for me who had been a Congressional page during that time. The standing joke among the male pages? "Don't use staples on the reports for the Republican reps...they prefer their pages bent over."

Fortunately, I think we finally have some young guns in our party (Swalwell, Lui, AOC, and Frost come to mind immediately) who will stand up and ask, "At long last, have you no sense of decency?" Unfortunately, the answer today is "No".

Response to PCIntern (Original post)

FakeNoose

(32,917 posts)
43. Have any of those sanctimonious lawyers bothered to ask Chump
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 04:27 PM
Feb 19

... whether HE's ever banged any of HIS female co-workers?

I rest my case ....

PaulRevere08

(449 posts)
46. At worse - this is a "code of conduct" issue, and I am not really sure that it is. But I would like to point out
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 05:13 PM
Feb 19

how many of TFG's lawyers have crossed that line. I mean if unethical Lawyering was in the Paris Olympics, the medal stand would be overflowing with his lawyers.

Vinca

(50,334 posts)
51. Apparently, in Georgia, if both spouses are lawyers they can represent opposing sides in a trial.
Mon Feb 19, 2024, 06:11 PM
Feb 19

That would seem far more problematic than a couple of co-workers having a fling that has nothing to do with the facts of the case at hand.

dpibel

(2,896 posts)
60. So sad
Tue Feb 20, 2024, 02:13 AM
Feb 20

That's the best you can do?

And you've used that one before.

Non sequitur that it is and all.

Then again, it appears that you really don't know what "causal fallacy" means.

You should look it up.

Sound it out.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I would like to remind us...