General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI 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, its the same old same old.
Im really tired of faux outrage concerning sex and sexuality. The Reagan crowd began using it wholesale with Falwell and his ilk in the late 1970s 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 80s that
what these assholes need is a real orgasm. Truer words never spoken.
pwb
(11,318 posts)Trump is the criminal here no matter what diversions they try. This is just more puke theater and production.
Basic LA
(2,047 posts)And interesting about the O.J. prosecution.
MOMFUDSKI
(5,811 posts)I love your mom! lol
PCIntern
(25,656 posts)But when she did, it was on the mark.
Danascot
(4,699 posts)"What they need is a good blowjob."
PCIntern
(25,656 posts)Danascot
(4,699 posts)claudette
(3,640 posts)that Willis did not take into consideration how her affair would be perceived in such a high profile IMPORTANT case
PCIntern
(25,656 posts)Propinquity propinks. 😁
PTL_Mancuso
(276 posts)FalloutShelter
(11,916 posts)He was not her first choice.
True Blue American
(17,996 posts)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.
Think. Again.
(8,892 posts)...I don't understand your surprise.
claudette
(3,640 posts)true then why did it go to a hearing if there was no problem?
Think. Again.
(8,892 posts)soldierant
(6,966 posts)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.
Does that make the perps any less guilty?
claudette
(3,640 posts)But it makes it more difficult to stop the attacks by magats. And. From what Chuck Rosenberg said on TV, its a violation to have such a relationship with a subordinate. Thats why I said that.
soldierant
(6,966 posts)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)claudette
(3,640 posts)to consider. There was another person involved.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,574 posts)Unless it affects her job, it ain't nobody's business but her own.
claudette
(3,640 posts)some government offices frown on a sexual relationship with a subordinate according to one pundit on TV
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,574 posts)Does their work relationship make a romantic or sexual relationship inherently harassment?
FalloutShelter
(11,916 posts)Thanks for posting this, PC.
Goddessartist
(1,892 posts)and thank you for this perfectly apt post.
hlthe2b
(102,562 posts)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.
PCIntern
(25,656 posts)tavernier
(12,428 posts)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 Im missing the point entirely. Havent 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)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. Id say to start about three weeks ago.
tavernier
(12,428 posts)It really does sound like a circus. I hope the judge has good sense.
PCIntern
(25,656 posts)LeftInTX
(25,813 posts)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)I really wasnt 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 wont be bamboozled. Lets hope.
mopinko
(70,388 posts)giving a lot of those hard earned $$ to cover up their indiscretions.
BumRushDaShow
(130,044 posts)It was bad enough seeing Marsha Clark's name but now you whip out this guy -
LeftInTX
(25,813 posts)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)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.
mopinko
(70,388 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,044 posts)that's even worse!
BarbD
(1,195 posts)A man is not a plan!
mountain grammy
(26,676 posts)Really took a swing at republican values. She was something else on that stand! Loved every minute.
jaxexpat
(6,883 posts)LeftInTX
(25,813 posts)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)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)What Im saying is that THIS STUFF HAPPENS and is between consenting adults and this is irrelevant to the case.
wendyb-NC
(3,351 posts)WinstonSmith4740
(3,060 posts)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)
Name removed Message auto-removed
PCIntern
(25,656 posts)MorbidButterflyTat
(1,882 posts)I need a cigarette.
FakeNoose
(32,917 posts)... whether HE's ever banged any of HIS female co-workers?
I rest my case ....
PaulRevere08
(449 posts)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)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.
Silent Type
(3,055 posts)dpibel
(2,896 posts)Just asking.
Silent Type
(3,055 posts)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.
orangecrush
(19,666 posts)This op.
True Blue American
(17,996 posts)Brown.
H2O Man
(73,709 posts)Exactly right on your mother's part. These are unhappy people.