Well, yes, of course

The House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, has said Donald Trump, not Harvey Weinstein, inspired the recent and continuing wave of sexual misconduct allegations against powerful men in Hollywood, politics and other sections of society.

Must be, obviously.

18 thoughts on “Well, yes, of course”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    She is right. The Left would be covering up for their own to this today. Except their Trump Derangement Syndrome got the better of them. In their effort to get rid of Trump they have lashed out and hit a lot of Democrats.

  2. Note the claim he caused the allegations. Give it a year and they’ll be claiming he made Weinstein perform the assaults too, and they’ll believe it when they say it.

  3. I’m with Niels; this is only a bad thing if you’re
    a lying , hypocritical Dem luvvie. For normal people, it’s yet another feather in Don’s cap.

  4. @Rob

    My thoughts exactly. Next you’ll have a report demanding that sole traders should have the same protection as limited companies.

  5. Rob, note the bleating that the law should be something different to what it actually is.

    Ignorantia juris non excusat.

  6. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    Rob – oh dear.

    Mother-of-five Yvonne, who was with her ex-partner 17 years, said she was “shocked to find out” her legal rights when they ended the relationship.
    “I was entitled to nothing,” she said.

    Side note: In the quaint olden days of heteropatriarchy, we could reasonably assume all 5 children are his, and very few women would let a man impregnate them multiple times without sealing the deal with a wedding, but alas…

    “I’m devastated to have been left in this situation, and think it’s wrong that the law is unable to provide people like me with any support whatsoever,” she said.

    Note, she’s not talking about her formerly cohabiting cad’s legal obligation to aliment his children, her stance is: You used my vagina. Pay me.

    The Two Ronnies tried to warn us, but we didn’t listen.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    He said: “The government must listen to the public, legal professionals and a growing number of politicians who all agree that we need reform to provide basic rights to cohabiting couples should they separate.”

    So nothing to do with all the extra work all those common law divorces will bring in then?

    Cohabiting couples do have rights. The right not to be screwed over by alimony and child support for one. If there needs to be a change in the law let me offer the obvious change – marriage should become more like cohabiting.

  8. No alimony without matrimony.

    Somebody had to say it.

    Reading Rob’s link, the thought that strikes me is: “Why the fvck would you ever get married?”

  9. “Resolution” – I thought this was the renamed “Marriage Guidance Council”, an organisation now dedicated to destroying Marriage, but that’s Relate.

    No, this group are just lawyers. Quite why the BBC believes they need a huge splash story is beyond me.

  10. @solidsteve – it’s as if the legal position had not been discussed multiple times in newspapers/online and on TV. You just can’t fix stupid.

  11. “Ignorantia juris non excusat”

    Not in Canada at least:


    Or Australia;


    And I’m fairly sure I’ve seen cases reported from the UK where ignorance of the law has been used as an excuse to let criminals off or give them a reduced sentence (usually immigrants it has to be said).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *