You know how San Diego Mayor Bob "Dirty Old Man" Filner is, like, the creepiest mayor what ever mayored and sexually harassed three fourALL the women? Well, don't get your panties in a twist; his lawyer says it's not his fault! "The city has a legal obligation to provide sexual harassment training to all management level employees," wrote attorney Harvey Berger in a letter requesting the city pay Filner's legal bills in defense of the lawsuit filed by his former communications director. [...]
To return to your original point, "The City of San Diego is too stupid to realize that furnishing a defense to Filner in any litigation brought by third parties in these circumstances inures to the City's benefit."
Aside from the fact that I'm not clear on who the stupid City of San Diego is, in this context, I disagree with you that furnishing a defense will benefit the city.
The city is going to get sued for, yes, not having anti-harassment mechanisms in place. And, depending on how the facts are found to be, the city may lose or have to settle. But the findings about the city's liability are going to be largely independent of the findings about Filner's liability.
If the city had appropriate policies in place, and followed them, the city may well come out clean even if Filner doesn't. For example, if none of the women who have now come forward ever filed a complaint before this, what was the city to do? Even the strongest harassment policy does not require mind-reading.
If the city DIDN'T have appropriate policies, or did have them but didn't FOLLOW them, then the city is going to have some liability unless all the claims turn out to be totally fictitious. Which seems unlikely, since Filner has largely copped.
I don't see how, in either case, it would benefit the city to pay anything for Filner's defense, unless they concluded that there was some opportunistic piling-on happening. I guess I don't think that's likely to be the case. If not, it would just be throwing money away.
Incidentally, I don't blame Berger at all for being a zealous advocate. Weird as it may be sometimes, trial by combat of attorneys is what we've got for a justice system, and he's doing that.
And I'm sorry about the politics (I live in California, too), but this isn't a case of consensual wiener-tweeting, or consensual hooker-banging, or even consensual BJs. This is Grade AA Acting-like-a-fucking-asshole, and I'm afraid we're just going to have to live with the consequences.
Hmm. I turned ABP off and reloaded, and the only Wonkette ads I could see were just text and the same kitten with a whip that adorns the page header. I feel deprived.
They are in a rotation queue as part of some ad network thing. Or you can just see a couple of them in low res <a href="https:\/\/twitter.com\/commiegirl1\/status\/362970900208947200\/photo\/1" target="_blank">here</a>.
Well, he could look like Paul Ryan.
Is <i>that</i> what you call it?
To return to your original point, &quot;The City of San Diego is too stupid to realize that furnishing a defense to Filner in any litigation brought by third parties in these circumstances inures to the City&#039;s benefit.&quot;
Aside from the fact that I&#039;m not clear on who the stupid City of San Diego is, in this context, I disagree with you that furnishing a defense will benefit the city.
The city is going to get sued for, yes, not having anti-harassment mechanisms in place. And, depending on how the facts are found to be, the city may lose or have to settle. But the findings about the city&#039;s liability are going to be largely independent of the findings about Filner&#039;s liability.
If the city had appropriate policies in place, and followed them, the city may well come out clean even if Filner doesn&#039;t. For example, if none of the women who have now come forward ever filed a complaint before this, what was the city to do? Even the strongest harassment policy does not require mind-reading.
If the city DIDN&#039;T have appropriate policies, or did have them but didn&#039;t FOLLOW them, then the city is going to have some liability unless all the claims turn out to be totally fictitious. Which seems unlikely, since Filner has largely copped.
I don&#039;t see how, in either case, it would benefit the city to pay anything for Filner&#039;s defense, unless they concluded that there was some opportunistic piling-on happening. I guess I don&#039;t think that&#039;s likely to be the case. If not, it would just be throwing money away.
Incidentally, I don&#039;t blame Berger at all for being a zealous advocate. Weird as it may be sometimes, trial by combat of attorneys is what we&#039;ve got for a justice system, and he&#039;s doing that.
And I&#039;m sorry about the politics (I live in California, too), but this isn&#039;t a case of consensual wiener-tweeting, or consensual hooker-banging, or even consensual BJs. This is Grade AA Acting-like-a-fucking-asshole, and I&#039;m afraid we&#039;re just going to have to live with the consequences.
/ohsnap
My lawyer tells me that I need your address to proceed...
Has anyone actually asked Weiner&#039;s weener?
For me, the real scary part is how the skin is just a little too small for the lizard inside.
Chthulhu doesn&#039;t scare me like that face.
Maybe I made it so that it inches up with every donation...
Hmm. I turned ABP off and reloaded, and the only Wonkette ads I could see were just text and the same kitten with a whip that adorns the page header. I feel deprived.
Hard to believe the dude&#039;s not a Republican. Or pastor of a Megachurch. Or both.
They are in a rotation queue as part of some ad network thing. Or you can just see a couple of them in low res <a href="https:\/\/twitter.com\/commiegirl1\/status\/362970900208947200\/photo\/1" target="_blank">here</a>.
Or just skip the middle man: <a href="http://wonkette.com/clever-..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://wonkette.com/clever-title-for-donations-pa...">http://wonkette.com/clever-...
<a href="https:\/\/twitter.com\/Shypixel\/status\/362822213260427264\/photo\/1" target="_blank">This one</a> is my favorite.
Caveat Mulieris
The <strike>Invisible</strike> Grabby Hand of the Market has Spoken.
His teeth frighten me.
I haven&#039;t seen willful ignorance like that since ... um, when was the last time Michele Bachmann spoke?