HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Slate - Mercedes Colwin t...

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 10:45 PM

Slate - Mercedes Colwin tells Hannity women lie about harassment for money - Does DU Agree?

Who knew that so many liberals and progressives are ideologically aligned with Sean Hannity. I read one post by someone on DU proclaiming that they are leaving the Democratic party because women Senators demanded that Senator Franken should resign due to credible allegations of harassment. These posts were echoed with violent sounding threats and remarks directors at Franken's accusers. Thus, you have to ask? Are we conceding that Franken's multiple accusers were all lying and making allegations of harassment for some personal advantage? Was Sean Hannity and Mercedes Colwin correct?

https://slate.com/business/2017/11/mercedes-colwin-tells-hannity-women-lie-about-harassment-for-money.html

I try not to allow myself to get worked up about the vile things Fox News hosts and their guests say on air most nights. But I’ve had trouble getting this clip from Thursday night’s Hannity out of my head. In it, a powerful female attorney with a management role at a major American law firm says that women frequently make up sexual harassment claims for money and that actual victims of sexual predators are “few and far between.”

Fox News legal analyst Mercedes Colwin was appearing on Sean Hannity’s show to discuss the bombshell allegations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who according the Washington Post took home and undressed a 14-year-old girl when he was a 32-year-old prosecutor. The segment went about how you would expect. Hannity argued that people shouldn’t rush to judgment and that Moore deserved our presumption of innocence. Colwin, an employment lawyer who has appeared on the network since 2005, invoked her experience representing “hundreds of corporate executives that have been accused of sexual misconduct,” and confirmed for Hannity that women often lie about harassment for political purposes or money.

Hannity: Do people do it for money? Do they do it for political reasons? Is that more common than people think?

Colwin: Oh definitely.

Hannity: They will lie to make money?

Colwin: Undoubtedly. I mean, there are individuals who will come forward with these outrageous allegations, and they fall…

Hannity: And that hurts women who are victims.

Colwin: Yes. I used to work in sex crimes in the DA’s office. It was very pitiful to see that. Because some jurors don’t believe it because they have, in their own lives, there are people who have made these accusations for money. You see this time and time and time again. And sexual harassment, that term is coined everywhere, frankly, the laws are very clear about what it takes to have some sort of violation of the law. You have to have some sort of damage. And these individuals, a lot of these women, it’s all about money, and they bank on the fact that these corporations have the reputation that they want to save.

13 replies, 1064 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Slate - Mercedes Colwin tells Hannity women lie about harassment for money - Does DU Agree? (Original post)
TomCADem Dec 2017 OP
SHRED Dec 2017 #1
Mme. Defarge Dec 2017 #2
TomCADem Dec 2017 #3
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2017 #4
TomCADem Dec 2017 #5
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2017 #10
loyalsister Dec 2017 #6
Mme. Defarge Dec 2017 #13
Nevernose Dec 2017 #7
blueinredohio Dec 2017 #8
Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2017 #9
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2017 #11
Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2017 #12

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 10:50 PM

1. Many people here are upset because...

 

...Franken did not get a fair hearing.

NOT because women accused him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 10:57 PM

2. Its true, some people will do pretty much anything

for money. That’s why due process is a non-negotiable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:01 PM

3. Due Process? Franken Resigned.

If I decide to quit my job, I don't need to go through a hearing.

Also, lets say Franken did engage in some of the acts that were alleged. I think it is a fair debate as to whether he should resign. Personally, I think it was okay that he apologized, and acknowledged what he did was wrong, but people can disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:08 PM

4. Oh please, Senator Franken was completely ostracized.

 

The firm I work for is representing somebody who "resigned" too. After he was banished from the property, stripped of access to corporate networks, purged from the company website and staff were ordered to cease contact with him.

Settlement is going to be in the $500,000 - $600,000 range plus whatever they agree to buy his share of the company for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:16 PM

5. So, there is a due process right not to be ostracized?

I always thought that due process related to when you were deprived of freedom or a property right. But, I had a due process right not to be ostracized? Wish I knew that back in high school when I was total Star Wars geek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:31 PM

10. You're being ridiculous

 

He resigned because there was no way forward, even when he was completely exonerated he wouldn't have been re-embraced by those who wanted his scalp to appease the shrieking hoard.

The question was whether or not he was interested in sitting as an independent for the rest of his term, he decided he wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mme. Defarge (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:20 PM

6. Franken wasn't accused of a crime

He was not entitled to a trial. This played out in the media as most scandals do. It sucks, but this was not a civil suit or criminal charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:49 PM

13. His career in politics was destroyed,

his good name has been tarnished, and he was drummed out of office by his colleagues, who ganged up on him in an unseemly rush to judgement over unproven allegations of misconduct putting him in an untenable situation. That is the very definition of a hostile environment.

Not to mention the fact that his constituents had no say in the matter.

If this happened in the private sector and I was one of the parties involved, I would be lawyering up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:22 PM

7. Whats the ratio?

What’s the ratio of credible versus non-credible accusers one has to reach before you’re willing to believe a litany of ridiculous accusations?

What’s the exact number of anonymous, vague accusers one had to have before one is expected to resign?

YOU once touched my waist with my consent, AND you once didn’t kiss me on the lips. Why haven’t you quit your job yet? Could it be because the accusations I made weren’t put on CNN completely uncritically?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:25 PM

8. He wanted an investigation but didn't get one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueinredohio (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:28 PM

9. Because he resigned. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:34 PM

11. Suppose he hadn't resigned,

 

Would the shrieking calls for resignation and character assassination ceased?

Asking someone to tolerate months on ongoing harassment for the pyrrhic victory of being an exonerated independent is a lot to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 7, 2017, 11:36 PM

12. If I were innocent, I would deal with it. Exoneration feels invigorating. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread