Pass the butter.
During the 2016 election, several women made claims of sexual harassment against then Presidential candidate Donald Trump. In October, less than four weeks before the election, NBC releases an Access Hollywood tape of Trump talking about obscene acts with women with Billy Bush.
Democrats were ecstatic because here was a chance to finally get their candidate in the oval office even though most of them wanted him to win the Republican primary. One of those, “careful what you wish for” kind of things.
Trump decided that if they want to talk about allegations, then perhaps they could address the victims of President Clinton and whether Hillary, and the Democrats would put their principles where their mouth is.
The Democrats response: This is old news. Trump, however, knew exactly was he was doing. Democrats, predictably feigned outrage that he was trying to embarrass Hillary and still afforded Bill’s victim no credibility. In short, they circled the wagons. Voters, however, were not impressed.
This was a smart move by Trump. The Democrats could have put their stake into the ground at that point, but chose otherwise.
Fast forward to October 2017. Influential Hollywood executive and major Democrat donor Harvey Weinstein is outed as a serial sexual harasser and rapist. The original story was passed to NBC News, the same organization that had no problem releasing Trump’s tape, but decided not to run it. Ronan Farrow made cryptic revelations on MSNBC, but it was the New York Times that ran the full expose.
The release started a wave of accusers coming forward and outing several more influential liberal hollywood elites. Of course, the power brokers within the Democrat party all expressed shock – days later – that they had no idea any of this was happening and were deeply troubled by the events.
Later it was revealed that not only did the party elites know about Weinstein’s behavior, they did nothing to stop it. To this day, more allegations against him are being reported.
In November 2017, the Washington Post released a story that former Alabama State Supreme Court Justice and senate candidate Roy Moore actively pursued underage teens as love interests while serving as an assistant district attorney. Two of the accusers claimed that he had forced himself upon them.
Shortly after that story broke, Senator Al Franken was accused of sexual assault by Leeann Tweeden. This was followed by more accusers coming forward with similar claims. Franken offered no denials, but rather expressed shocked and disappointment in himself that women were made uncomfortable in his presence.
In the US House, Representative John Conyers was accused of sexual harassment from staff members. It was subsequently revealed that Congress had set up a slush fund to essentially pay off and silence accusers, and a staff member of Conyers received a payment. And since the revelation of that fund, even more members of Congress have been outed, with more to come.
All of these events have caused Democrats to finally “awaken” to the idea that, politically, now would be a good time to stand on the side of the accusers. Subsequently, they have demanded the resignations of both John Conyers, Al Franken, and now President Trump.
For years, powerful Democrats have been hiding their secrets and protecting their icons by using false narratives of being advocates for women. Turns out, Democrats have been creating victims all along.
Nancy Pelosi waited for days before finally saying that John Conyers should resign. Her defense of Franken changed course days later. She held off for a few weeks before saying that former San Diego mayor Bob Filner resign after he was accused and subsequently charged with crimes related to sexual misconduct. When Kellyanne Conway was characterized by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) in a crude sexual way, Pelosi made sure not to stand with her.
Which brings us to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. After years of supporting the Clinton’s, she now has decided to believe Clinton’s accusers, effectively distancing herself from his enabler, Hillary Clinton. As if on cue, women from the Congressional ranks are lining up to demand a “conversation” about sexual harassment, with some even calling for Trump’s alleged misconduct well before the election, to be investigated.
In the spirit of “never let a crisis go to waste”, Democrats have changed their thinking, but not because they actually believe they are in favor of protecting women; they have found that if they can gain the moral high ground, they might be able to achieve their one true objective, which is to remove Trump from office that rightfully, according to them, belongs to Hillary.
Moore’s allegations gave Democrats an impetus to harden their stance. The seriousness of possible child rape was more than enough to solidify their positions and show even moderate voters they care more about victims than do Republicans.
So they’ve changed the rules from defending Clinton to now anyone accused must answer and pay for their sins. If you’re a sexual harasser and assaulted women, and in Moore’s case, accused of sexual assault on underage teens, then the only proper thing is for you to apologize, accept responsibility, and resign from political power. No if, and’s or butt’s. The mob mentality has said so; principle of due process and fairness be damned.
Democrats have now played their hand. Trump associating with an alleged child predator, they can seize the moral high ground especially since they’ve been sacrificing their own. This means that Democrats have aligned themselves totally within the social justice (fascist) movement.
Moore, however, ended up losing the race. While Republicans dodged a bullet in how to deal with Moore, Democrats lost the ability to hold the high ground, especially since Republican members of Congress with allegations have either resigned or will not seek re-election.
Franken’s resignation has no date. Conyer’s constituents want due process from what they perceive is a racist process, even though he’s resigning and wants his son to take his place.
Senator Bob Menendez never resigned his position and while he faces ethics charges, Democrats have been mum on whether he should resign or be expelled as an indicted member. Remember, Menendez allegations include paying for sex with underage prostitutes.
At some point, with all the accusations flying around and people losing their livelihoods, someone is going to fight back. What will happen when an influential Democrat is accused of sexual malfeasance and decides that enough is enough and give due process a chance?
Interestingly, it was reported today that a Democrat running for a house seat in Kansas City has allegations of sexual harassment. The kicker? The candidate is a woman who was the subject of a settled lawsuit involving allegations the accuser rejected her sexual advances.
Some feminists believe that men cannot be sexually harassed. This obviously throws a wrench into that narrative.
Of course, she has denied all allegations even though she has dropped out of the race and paid a settlement. Under the new rules, settlement is the same thing as an admission of guilt. I remember conservatives having lost their jobs based on settlements related to allegations.
The bigger question is, will the Democrats stay committed to their new hard rule of “believe the accusers” and the subsequent “you must resign, be fired, lose your livelihood” on merely an allegation as more liberals and Democrats are outed as sexual abusers? How much power are they willing to give up to satisfy the demands of social justice?
Seems like everyday, 2-3 more reports are published of influential liberals with zipper problems, and it looks like the flood has yet to peak. One thing is for sure: When the push back comes, how committed will the Democrats be to their new rules? And at what price? Buy more popcorn.