Maggie's Farm

What, exactly, is harassment? Calling Warren a squaw seems extremely mild when compared with what the left is calling Trump. Are there degrees of harassment and if so should it all be called "harassment"? We often here of "sexual harassment" claims that when looked at don't seem to be harassment or sexual in nature. Yet without enough information to make that determination simply making the claim forever taints that person's reputation. What bothers me most about Warren's fake claim and Heather Lind's over the top claim is simply how easy it is for these people to make these reputation destroying claims and how serious everyone takes them. Then of course there are the truth shaming by the left if you even point out that the assumed "victim" lied' or exaggerated. You can't speak the truth about "victims" that lie or exaggerate because they are victims, kinda a self fulfilling prophecy. Where does common sense and logic go in spurious claims of sexual harassment or racism. Why can't we doubt the claim or the intent of the claimant???

“What, exactly, is harassment? “ the dictionary might be helpful, "to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct".
Thank you for illustrating my point! In other words harassment is whatever the accuser says it is.


“Are there degrees of harassment: Yes, obviously.”
Duh! The point is when if ever have you heard either the MSM or the accuser use that scale. It is always “harassment” or “sexual harassment”. By that scale I have been sexually harassed by women literally thousands of times in my life.


“What bothers me most about Warren's fake claim ... As the original Boston Globe article makes clear, the claim is reasonably substantiated.”
This is the problem with almost all claims. The MSM and various interest groups knee jerk to confirm that it is true and even if it isn’t who are you to question the victim of the fake claim.


“Heather Lind's over the top claim George H.W. Bush apologized.”
Mr Bush is a gentleman who naively would apologize to Hillary for speaking up against her many crimes.
What actually happened is that since Mr Bush became wheelchair bound when he put’s his arm around someone for a picture his arm is about waist/hip high. For Ms. Lind to call this sexual harassment is over the top. Which brings me back to my question; what degree of sexual harassment would that be? Or perhaps Ms. Lind is guilty of harassment of a disabled person in this case.


Where does common sense and logic go in spurious claims of sexual harassment or racism… If there is a criminal claim, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Let’s be honest; in most cases like this it is about the money in a settlement OR a political lynching as Ted Kennedy tried against judge Thomas.


“when there is a long pattern of alleged behavior, it lends credence to the claims, as in the Weinstein case.”
Absolutely true. But isn’t it interesting how the left suddenly gins up a series of claims of sexual harassment against people on the right to take the heat of Weinstein?

"The kind which requires an apology."

Well, that is exactly the problem with any accusation of harassment or sexual harassment; you can't deny it, explain it or ignore it. Your lawyer or public relations person will tell you that all you can do is apologize and make nice. You might disagree with that advice and insist it never happened or never happened the way she claimed. Your lawyer will tell you that if it goes to court you will lose and be forced to settle for millions. AND, perhaps worst of all, if you settle to get rid of the legal risk there will be a non-disclosure agreement that will prevent you from ever telling your side of the story and clearing your name. Voila! Therein lies the reason for sexual harassment claims.

"...then we agree there are at least some cases which could be considered harassment."


Absolutely! Probably 50%. The rest is made up, exaggerated, or a honey trap.

The best defense is a good offense. If it's verbal than respond loudly and emphatically. If it's physical, as an unwanted touch or more, than respond with a slap in the face (if you are a woman). I am highly suspicious of those stories which either result in a big settlement or in a political assassination.

It boggles the mind that you would bring up Benghazi as a distraction to protect Hillary and Obama. Benghazi was a terrible and unnecessary failing of Hillary and Obama so to just laugh it off says so much about you and the left.

When the attack in Benghazi first began the U.S. government told the defenders to stand down. Why? When they did not stand down and were able to push back the over running of the embassy and giving U.S. troops time to intercede the military was told to stand down. It seems that this was worse then bungled and in fact was intentional or worse that the administration was complicit. Again, why? We are left to jump to the conclusion that whatever the administration did and was trying to cover up in Benghazi that the attack would aid them in this effort and a dead ambassador was a better outcome than a live ambassador. Hillary did nothing! Obama did worse than nothing, he told the government agencies to stand down and went to bed. Apparently could care less about the ambassador and the heros fighting to save the ambassador. It would seem to me that bringing up a dsigraceful and deadly coverup by Hillary and Obama to make light of this new coverup by Hillary and Obama is not your smartest choice. Don't you have any control over that inner voice that compels you to blurt out stupid things?

“Benghazi was a terrible and unnecessary failing of Hillary and Obama: Sure. Various mistakes were made…”

The famous “mistakes were made’ excuse. What happened to the buck stops here? Why the coverup then if the only problem was that “mistakes were made”?


“As the investigation made clear, there was no order to stand down”
Were these the same investigation agencies that determined that Trump had a prostitute pee on him? The truth is there wasn’t an “investigation” there was a coverup.


“there was no stand down order.”
There was and those who were willing to come forward to say there was were punished for it.


“risk-taking ambassador.”
The ambassador who begged for more security. The ambassador who was ordered to Benghazi and didn’t want to be there (still don’t know WHY he was there or WHAT our government is covering up about his mission. Best guess is selling weapons to our enemies.)

“hundreds of Americans service members were killed in Beirut when Reagan was President”

Obfuscate, deny, change the subject and blame others; is that all the left can do


“every effort was made to rescue Americans in danger.”

That is exactly incorrect, intentionally incorrect. There is no good reason to hide or cover up what happened. And yet they did and still do. Why? Why did Hillary set up Ambassador Stevens and why did they want him killed? What did he know that needed to be kept secret?


“Congress refused to allot more money for security.”

Are you telling me that congress micro-manages the state department’s budget so much that Hillary could spend a few more dollars in one country and a few less in another? Is that what we are supposed to believe?