Report: Kamala Harris’ Husband Allegedly Slapped Ex-Girlfriend

Yep, Harris didn’t mind dating and then marrying a physically abusive misogynist because she was used to being just a piece of meat men had their way with, that was the only life she knew.

This is a long and detailed article and there can only be on response to this by the left - But Trump!

Doug Emhoff was a foul-mouthed 'a**hole' and 'misogynist' who hired a 'trophy secretary' because she was 'pretty' and 'retaliated against women who didn't flirt back' at LA law firm, ex-staff claim

Kamala Harris's husband was 'inappropriate' and 'misogynistic' at work, his former colleagues tell DailyMail.com.

Attorneys who worked with Doug Emhoff at his former firm Venable say he yelled expletives, held a men-only cocktail hour in the office, revoked work perks from women who didn't flirt with him, and took only young, attractive associates in a limousine to a ball.

A 2019 lawsuit also claimed sex discrimination by other partners in the LA office Emhoff ran, and that while engaged to Harris, he hired an 'unqualified' part-time model as a legal secretary 'because she was young, attractive and friendly with the powerful men in the office'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...band-doug-emhoff-office-misogynist-flirt.html

 

Can you guys do better than anonymous sources reported by a hilariously dishonest roll of tabloid toilet paper?

 

So in a thread about Harris, you and a bunch of your pals repeatedly bring up something that has nothing to do with the thread’s topic, and is something that will never impact you at all. So like you and your lefty pals, the only defense you can make for the poor decisions made by Biden, Harris and all the other democrats, is to whataboutism a thread to death with Trump, Trump and more Trump. You guys do this in every thread, it’s very similar to a third grader saying ‘well he did it, too.’

 

tell me what rape is in terms of a legal definition
Trump has never been convicted nor charged with the crime of rape

if you called him an "adjudicated rapist" and he was a private citizen, you would be liable for defamation per se.

 

You said "there is no such legal status of being adjudicated of criminal conduct: only guilty or innocent"
One can be adjudicated of criminal conduct. I get the rapist part, Trump was not convicted nor adjudicated for rape.
My question was about your statement, quoted above.

 

The definition of rape depends on the state.

The judge in the NY case said that Trump could not be found liable for rape in the state of NY since E Jean Carroll could not state definitively that Trump violated her with his "Mini Donald", but that in most other states penetration by fingers is considered rape.

A technical difference.

 

When you claim that Biden also had documents in his house, pointing out that Trump not only had the documents but ACTIVELY tried to keep them away from the government, that is NOT a "defense of Biden", it's an accusation of hypocrisy against Trump supporters.

Here is the way it's been working,
Trump is indicted under 793(e) of the the US Penal Code.
Trump sycophants then engage in the "whataboutism" by trying to talk about the documents found in the Biden home, even though the two situations are different and not remotely the same.
We point out that is "whataboutism" and blatant hypocrisy
Trump supporters then claim by even mentioning Trump we are engaged in "whataboutism" even though Trump was the original subject all along.

 

he wasn't convicted of any crime-that alone destroys that claim RAPE IS A FELONY

Trump was sued for CIVIL liability

 

not yet, look it up. he hasn't been sentenced yet

 

Link.

 

you made the charge-you back it up.

 

Jury found him guilty = conviction

That conviction MAY be overturned on appeal, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

Take it as you will, of course your response was expected and your denigrating comment is a true example of anyone that cares to apologize or make excuses for "P01135809" is quite a show.
But once again, your moral compass is in question.
Excuse after excuse for "P01135809" fall short when you try to make such an issue out of what you are trying.
Here is what we have never heard from the apologists for "P01135809", if the story is true then it is wrong what Emoff did was wrong and should be held accountable.
But you could never say that about "P01135809"
Something you never expected, this response.
I got exactly what I needed from you!
Your moral compass is not worth anything.

 

Just a bunch of anonymous, politically-motivated, "he said/she said", bullshit?
Sounds like major stuff that is going to cost Harris the election.
Just another reason, along with Trump getting 95% of the Black vote in DC, which is going to lead to a 538-0 Trump Sweep...
Kamala, we hardly knew ye...

 

I'm personally open to anonymous sources IF they are corroborated by multiple sources of different political allegiances. That hasn't happened so far here. And this particular source is notoriously disingenuous.

 

1) Trump IS an "Adjudicated Rapist"...
That has been explained multiple times...
2) He was FOUND LIABLE in the Carroll Civil Case, thus he is an Adjudicated Rapist....
"if you called him an "adjudicated rapist" and he was a private citizen, you would be liable for defamation per se"
^EXCEPT...Trump IS a Public Figure...
My assertion would also be "DEFAMATION PER SE" IF Bigfoot became Dictator for Life and changed the laws...

 

The courts say you are wrong. You can call someone a rapist using basic English language, even if it falls short of local laws. You are claiming that anal rape is impossible in New York. This is not the case. Anal rape is rape no matter what state you live in, even if the state won't call it rape.

 

Add to that, from the article, no one actually saw this, only by being told about it on the phone with "Jane".
Put me on the list as skeptical, for the lack of details, names, source and hearsay. I don't know whether or not it really happened, but there is nothing here to really hang one's hat on.

 

Especially since I'm not sure if Jane herself was actually ever interviewed. Most of the commentary are about her friends who, as you said, I don't think were even references. I've heard about another friend who Jane contacted at the time, which I would consider strong evidence, if it can be corroborated. If it happened, let's hold the guy accountable. The statute of limitations has undoubtably passed, but roast him about it in public. It still doesn't reflect on the campaign. But if all we have are anonymous sources on a famously dishonest tabloid, it doesn't even seem worth considering at the moment.

 

The only conclusion that one can draw is that certain people (who shall remain unnamed) relish tripling down on being totally owned and proven wrong (time and time again)...
Anyway, back on-topic, once again:
Emhoff WASN'T "Mr. Kamala Harris" when this alleged incident happened...
This (allegedly) happened in 2012/Harris met Emhoff in 2013...
This alleged incident has NOTHING to do with Harris...

 

As usual, Daily Mail reports rumors obtained from X. Truth is that the author of that hit piece appears to be an anti-Semite as none of things he claims is known. Snopes says:

"CBS News attempted to confirm the story independently. However, the details of the affair differ between its report and The Daily Mail's. While The Daily Mail said the woman did not keep the baby, CBS News quoted unnamed sources saying she'd had a miscarriage. While The Daily Mail reported that the affair ended the Emhoffs' marriage, CBS News' sources said the couple were separated at the time it took place. The Daily Mail added that the woman was Emhoff's daughter's nanny, a fact CBS News contradicted, saying she was a teacher at his children's school — but not one of their teachers. The Daily Mail added that the woman and Emhoff financially settled the issue, a detail CBS News did not mention.

Snopes has not yet been able to independently confirm the claims."


Daily Mail is in cahoots with the Federalist Society on this concocted story without any confirmation. Shame on you.

 

When and in what court was Emhoff convicted of being abusive to a woman and what evidence do you have that Harris is the kind of person you describe here? Or is this just another far right hit job you're taking onto yourself for your own joy?

 

“Something that has nothing to do with the threads topic”. You eft out, NOTING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH……

So you post an article does the Daily News (basically the National Enquirer of the UK) that quotes people 3x removed fromt he actual “victim”, and your claiming it gospel ? Seriously ?

The you go on to claim, again from people 3x removed from any real access, that Emhoff cheated on his first wife, AGAIN, unsourced…..

You righties are become and episode of the exiles wrapped in a cloak of the National Enquirer

What did Dori say: …..Keep Swimming….KEEEEEEEPPPPPP swimming

 

you are wrong yet again-=rape is a criminal action. You are not a rapist unless you have been convicted of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. The JURY rejected the whack job's claim that Trump penetrated her with his penis. that alone takes rape off the table even if it was a criminal case. It wasn't that plaintiff never would have made the burden of proof.

I never said anything about anal rape. it's the penis that matters in NY.

BOTTOM LINE-even the CIVIL jury determined he didn't engage in action that could be considered rape

I will tell you again-if Trump was a private person who lost the same type of case and you called him a RAPIST you would be liable for DEFAMATION PER SE

 

why tell obvious falsehoods. Trump was found liable for something that does not qualify as rape-even if proven beyond a reasonable doubt in NY. Why don't I see any leftwing attorneys backing up the bullshit you spew? They know damn well that calling someone a rapist who has never been convicted of RAPE is DEFAMATION and the only way you can get away with it is that Trump is a public figure. so you are safe but we are happy to note you are spewing stuff that is blatantly wrong