Hillary Clinton so shocked and appalled at the Dem’s big donor’s behaviour that she’ll be handing back all the money….or will she?…Marr didn’t ask the very obvious question.
Maybe Clinton was in fact shocked and appalled at Marr’s interview…it did seem as if rather than setting out to actually quiz Clinton with some tough questions, such as her own husband’s abuse of power to pull the girls, [Clinton was allowed to brush that off], Marr was using the interview to attack Trump, which oddly enough seemed to be Clinton’s aim as well…Marr and Clinton working together to smear the President…no bias there.
Marr allowed Clinton to claim Trump was a self-admitted sex attacker when in fact all he has done is make sexist comments in private, he then asked if Trump and Weinstein were ‘deep down the same kind of person’. So let’s be clear, Marr is suggesting Trump is a possible serial rapist, sex abuser and bully who uses his power to make women do what he wants judging by the allegations against Weinstein. Just astonishing that such accusations can so casually slip off the tongue of a BBC journalist making the most outrageous, poisonous and damaging of accusations just because he doesn’t like Trump.
Marr then doubles up on the toxic and malign disparagement aimed at Trump by suggesting he hates women. I would have thought that it was perfectly obvious that the opposite is true….he has done much to advance women’s careers and has promoted many to his administration.
This was more anti-Trump character assassination than a useful interview, Marr making little attempt to get under the skin of Clinton and rattle her cage….he even allowed her to make an assinine comparison that ‘proves’ Trump hates women….apparently his cold shouldering of Merkel and his warm approach to May is evidence of this hatred…not sure how that works…only in Clinton’s bitter little brain. Astonishing how bitter these left-wing losers are….Remoaners and Dems.
Wonder if all those ‘brave’ women whose careers were launched from Weinstein’s casting couch will be handing back the ill-gotten gains….their success won by allowing themselves to be bullied or cajoled into ‘prostituting’ themselves….they could have said ‘no’ but didn’t because they feared for their careers. An excuse this morning…Weinstein was so powerful he could destroy their careers if they talked so they didn’t talk….so their careers came first [no pun intended] before naming and shaming a possible rapist…and why did Rose McGowan ‘report’ Weinstein to an Amazon executive and not the police? She now attacks Amazon but takes no responsibility herself? So brave.
Addressing Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos on Twitter, McGowan – who has appeared in Scream, The Black Dahlia and TV series Charmed – criticised the company for doing business with Weinstein.
“I told the head of your studio that HW raped me,” she wrote. “Over & over I said it. He said it hadn’t been proven. I said I was the proof.”
Marr’s characterisation of Trump as a woman hater is shameless, and shameful, fake news that is just the ‘liberal elite’ hitting out at someone who doesn’t play by their rules….he could report this…
Trump signs laws to promote women in STEM
President Donald Trump signed two laws on Tuesday that authorize NASA and the National Science Foundation to encourage women and girls to get into STEM fields. Those are science, technology, engineering and math.
The Inspire Act directs NASA to promote STEM fields to women and girls, and encourage women to pursue careers in aerospace.
“It’s not fair and it’s not even smart,” Trump said of the low percentage of women with STEM degrees who actually work in the field. About a quarter of the women with STEM degrees work in the field.
Or this…from the anti-Trump Washington Post which makes the mistake in its overall analysis of thinking that because Trump insults some women it means he hates women…rather than thinking that these are insults directed at the person, such as Clinton, regardless of their sex…..
Donald Trump, a champion of women? His female employees think so.
Many women who have worked closely with Trump say he was a corporate executive ahead of his time in providing career advancement for women. While some say he could be boorish, his companies nurtured and promoted women in an otherwise male-dominated industry. Several women said they appreciated how Trump granted them entry to a new playing field.
“From the standpoint of being a woman, I just thought he was phenomenal,” said Sunshine, 74. “So supportive and encouraging. . . . He gave me the ropes, and I could either hang myself or prove myself.”
Jennifer Crisafulli-Oberting, 43, a contestant on the Trump reality TV show “The Apprentice” who went on to promote the show in media appearances with Trump, said she felt she was being welcomed into the “boys’ club” — but on her terms.
“You were like one of the guys right off the bat, but you didn’t have to act or dress like one of the guys,” she said.
Trump often told the women he employed and worked with that he valued those he believed would stand their ground on construction sites and in legal battles. He called Barbara Res, whom he put in charge of the construction of his now-iconic Trump Tower in 1980, “a killer,” she recalled. And he used to tell her and others that “men are better than women, but a good woman is better than 10 good men.”
“He wasn’t discriminatory against women that I saw,” said Res, now in her 60s and owner of a construction consultancy.
Andrew Marr shagged around ,and tried to suppress this with a super-injunction. Hillary Clinton defended known rapists, and indulged her seedy predatory husband. Yet these two are allowed to have the conversation about sex abusing blokes, as if they are not the very causes and sources of all this bile and venom. How very BBC…
Rather like Humphys and Carney fussing over the poor and the fears for capitalism on Today earlier this week? How much per hour are THOSE two getting to weep tears over us down here-yet no mockery or hint of irony or self-reflection at what a crock of shite they constitute?
Again-it`s what the liberals are now able to do, with no calling out.
AS
Allah may be merciful but we do not have to be. Keep on crucifying them.
Mar was actually filmed groping the arse of a junior BBC employee. I wonder if that lady thought that if she complained about this jug eared hypocrite doing that to her, it might not have helped her career with Dear Auntie BBC?
Of course, it may all have been “consensual”, just like it was all “consensual” when Harvey Weinstein used to strip off and demand massages from starlets.
Marr cannot help the fact that he is a very ugly and misshapen human being, that is just the hand he was dealt. However, the fact that he is a spiteful, hypocritical embittered leftist, who perverts his privileged position to forward his own political agenda, and who to boot engages in sexual activity with female employees junior to him, shows that he is a truly appalling individual, entirely unfit for the position of power and influence he holds.
Which means that the BBC fits him like a glove.
RiC
More crucifixion please.
I wish I could. Red Andy is scum.
Alan,
“Marr allowed Clinton to claim Trump was a self-admitted sex attacker when in fact all he has done is make sexist comments in private… ”
Trump; “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
“…he then asked if Trump and Weinstein were ‘deep down the same kind of person’. So let’s be clear, Marr is suggesting Trump is a possible serial rapist, sex abuser and bully who uses his power to make women do what he wants judging by the allegations against Weinstein.”
Nope.
Marr just asked if Clinton thought Trump and Weinstein were ‘deep down the same kind of person’, and she gave her answer; which you and everyone else watching can judge accordingly.
He didn’t “suggest” Trump was a possible serial rapist. He didn’t make outrageous, poisonous and damaging “accusations”.These are products of nothing more than your own twisted imagination.
Your next paragraph is truly outstanding.
“Wonder if all those ‘brave’ women whose careers were launched from Weinstein’s casting couch will be handing back the ill-gotten gains…”
‘Brave’ (quotation marks)?
“Ill-gotten gains”?
“…their success won by allowing themselves to be bullied or cajoled into ‘prostituting’ themselves….”
Of course, because women ‘allow themselves’ to be bullied; ‘allow themselves’ to be raped; and that makes them prostitutes.
Even by your own low standards this is disgusting.
“…they could have said ‘no’ but didn’t because they feared for their careers.”
They did say ‘no’, Alan.
“…so their careers came first [no pun intended]”
Hahahahahahahaha. Rape is funny.
“…and why did Rose McGowan ‘report’ Weinstein to an Amazon executive and not the police? She now attacks Amazon but takes no responsibility herself? So brave.”
Quite right… let’s attack a rape victim for taking no responsibility herself.
What have we here?
Our favourite albeeb apologist, again. Only a humble muzzie night shift worker.
Embittered, as they all are. Well, so would you be with an average IQ of 79 and trying to live down to the koran.
Remember that muzzie from one million years BC?
The one who flew through the air with the greatest of ease. Mounted on his favourite equine.
Must have been from morocco, where they still do the equine mounting today.
Well that paedo, encouraged, nay insisted, that its followers, go there and do thou likewise.
Where (one zillion years ago) it was a virtue to lie to the unbelievers. So it’s ok now to invent/distort material about a Western hero, Saint Donald, and repeat it here, out of context.
Producing a pseudo-koranic parody of the genuine puerile-koranic-paedo-bestial-pseudo-revelation.
Get your disgusting muzzie entity elsewhere, you could be performing some useful mass child raping, which
is what you muzzies do best, practise making perfect.
Leave him I expect after he’s shown his masters his work
.. he then logs in under another alter-ego and joins us exposing BBC bias.
Hi TruthSeeker – I am always willing to recognise and pass off as emotion and exaggeration certain things within comments. And although such comments can be cathartic for a narrow audience, they are generally not going to persuade a larger audience. My beef is not with Muslims per se but with various aspects of Islam that has control over many of them and the covering up in the West of what Islam actually is by our politicians and others.
ps I don’t think Maxincony is Muslim. I think he is a “liberal progressive” that works for the BBC, that comes on here for the sole purpose of defending the BBC.
First of all, it is worth noting what Trump ACTUALLY said, since it is something very different to that being portrayed by the media, and indeed as projected by Clinton.
Initially Trumps starts talking in the first person about himself. He says:
Then Trump moves to the third person and discusses matters generically. In the sentence below you refers back to when you are a star Trump says:
So what has Trump actually said?
Trump says: I kissed the girls, JUST KISS. Trump is saying he does nothing more than simply kissing.
Trump then goes on to note something about the girls he talking about, and about Star status. He says that the girls he is talking about will permit much more than mere kissing. He suggests that these girls will go as far as permitting someone to touch them more intimately, well that is IF the person who is doing the touching is a STAR
Closely coupled to this, Trump is suggesting that IF you are a STAR then you can do anything even touch girls intimately.
What is of particular note is that Trump does not say that he is a STAR, Trump does not say that he touches girls intimately, in fact he says that he only kisses girls, nothing more than that, hence “JUST KISS.”
What is abundantly clear is that Trump is not saying that he is some “p*ssy grabber”. You would not know that from the MSM, or BBC. The BBC in particular portrays Trump as a “p*ssy grabber” when it is absolutely clear that Trump is merely saying that he only kisses the girls, and nothing more than kiss. He actually emphases and stresses “JUST KISS”
You state:
So Marr is asking Clinton whether someone who does nothing more than kiss women, and only kiss, is deep down the same kind of person to that of Weinstein, who is facing accusations of something more than kissing. It is quite obvious to any sane and objective observer that Marr is seeking to make a comparison between Trump with someone who stands accused of taking sexual advantage of women (and underage women) for some 30 or so years, who has exposed themselves in front of women, who has played with themselves in front of women etc.
Of course, it is clear what Marr is inferring since he considers his question to be legitimate and worthy of an answer. He is inferring that Trump is a similar person to Weinstein, and hence inferring that Trump may behave or may have behaved in similar manner.
Alan is right, that that sort of questioning is outrageous, and it is symptomatic of the fake news that the BBC have been running on Trump, and their quite unjustified critique of him.
If only the BBC would stick to fact, rather than opine and promote their own agenda, the better this world would be. This type of broadcasting should not be state sponsored. It brings shame on society, and an interview like the Marr interview clearly demonstrates why the BBC should either have its licence to broadcast taken away, or should be made to be privately funded.
The point is women are attracted to rich powerful men.Look at Bill Clintons history .Thats a universal truth .That doesn’t mean the guys can step over the line and lure them to hotel rooms and grope /rape them.
Trump seems to be stating the obvious and enjoyed that females were attracted to him.
To equate Trump with Weinstien is ludicrous.Trump didnt set out to prey on young actresses just starting out on their quest for fame and fortune.The casting couch.
Anyone who expects searching questions of Hillary Clinton from the BBC is deluding themselves.A more fearless interviewer would have asked about her history as a lawyer ,the Whitewater scandal and her views of predatory husbands.
Clinton and Weinstein actually put their disgraceful intents into actual physical activities with young, impressive and vulnerable young women who were reliant on their patronage. The worst accusation they can level at Trump is that he has occasionally told somewhat crude, sexist jokes or comments.
For the bBBC to not only allow interviewees with equate a person making unsavoury comments about women with men who use their position to bully or manipulate women into engaging in actual sexual activities for fear of their careers but to actually encourage them to do so is an absolute disgrace. it is effectively debasing the rape and sexual molestation of women to the level of being no worse than that of unsavoury comments.
But, then again, when it comes to promoting the bBBC’s own political agenda that kind of behaviour is something the bBBC practices to perfection.
They preach about hate speech and behave like this with someone who dares to not play by their rules?
Q: What do Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump have in common (excluding a deserved reputation for taken advantage of their relative power to indulge in inappropriate behaviour)?
A: Hillary Clinton was happy to take their money.
I have known plenty of women who have been willing to lie on their backs to get a step up on the career ladder and done it. It sometimes takes two to tango . These lady saints in Hollywood getting into a position with a monster like Weinstein have themselves to blame. They didn’t care too much about their sisters either since they stayed quiet
I suppose once the press finishes with Weinstein there will be a list of producers, directors , stars and others who took / take advantage of their position to have a fiddle or get their leg over. I think it was always so between those with power and those who want something – money, fame, power
Why is she even on tele?
Because she, along with the Democrats, were willing to pocket huge political donations from Weinstein, even though they were doubtless aware that he had an unspoken reputation for his unsavoury reputation. (Whilst such behaviour might not become general public knowledge amongst people in the same circle such things rarely go unnoticed, if unspoken, and whispers in ears to steer clear are invariably given but often, for expediency, ignored.)
The reason Clinton is being dragged out to do the rounds of the liberal media, including the bBBC, is to enable her to carry out a damage limitation exercise by pretending she had no idea of his behaviour when pocketing his huge donations. That is why her questioning in never too intrusive and her blatant excuses glossed over.
Remember, the bBBC and the rest of the leftist-liberal media were absolutely certain that Saint Hilary would win the Presidential Election and, despite the shock of her losing, her halo must be kept untarnished. Don’t forget that they have Chelsea Clinton marked out as a future President and nothing must be allowed, despite the countless unsavoury things the Clintons have been involved with over several decades, nothing must be allowed to disrupt the Clinton Clan’s political ambitions.
The Clintons are the current version of the Kennedys, whose activities were equally unsavoury but largely ignored or brushed aside by the same leftist-liberal media who were only too eager to promote their political ambitions to the same level.
Let’s put here that $million evidence that Bill Clinton is a sex abuser (That@Rob-In-Cheshire shared)
Snopes comes up with mostly true for those claims
Anybody noticing how sheriff Joe Lombardo is being pressurised over Las Vegas? https://youtu.be/MReQtRxD2-M
In all of the interviews I have seen, including this one, I have seen no one follow up on her statement about returning the money Weinstein contributed to her cause. She has stated that that there is no direct way to refund the money and she always gives 10% to charity each year. So, since she always gives 10%, how is that returning the money from Weinstein? She needs to give back more than 10% based directly on the amounts contributed. Typical Ivy League lawyer response!