Discussion: Court: Trump Campaign Not Liable For Gun Assault Claim Against NC Director

Success has a thousand fathers. Pyscho-boss assault with a deadly weapon is an orphan.

Also, I guess this shows the upside of not vetting your hires.

Slightly OT, but the twisted, deranged NRA and its cult followers love it when schools get shot up by NRA lovers, because only in a horrific, tragic incident like that is the true strength of the 2nd Amendment tested. When a gunman attacks a school, it’s proof that the NRA is winning the battle to keep guns free of control/regulation/registration. That’s how disgusting the ammo-sexuals are in their crazed lust for ubiquitous guns.

How cute. This appeals court seems to believe that if Spankys campaign had known this guy was a gun nut that had a history of threatening people with his handgun they would not of hired him. More likely had they known about his gun history they would have hired him for a more important position in the campaign and then made him a cabinet secretary.

3 Likes

Bordini last year dropped his lawsuit accusing former North Carolina campaign director Earl Phillip of assault with his .45-caliber handgun as the two rode in a vehicle. Phillip said it never happened.

Wonder how many campaign volunteers were needed to complete a full set of teeth…

1 Like

It’s always fun to replace “gun” with “dick” in these stories. Probably wouldn’t even change the outcome.

A North Carolina appeals court says President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign organization isn’t responsible for a state director accused of pointing a loaded dick against another Trump supporter’s knee…

Bordini last year dropped his lawsuit accusing former North Carolina campaign director Earl Phillip of assault with his dick as the two rode in a vehicle. Phillip said it never happened.

Ain’t no “more likely” here. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Secretary of Energy:

3 Likes

I’m not surprised. Even if he had been classified as an employee, the court probably would have found, correctly, that threatening someone (at least someone who did not work for the other party) was not part of his employment. Unless the campaign knew that the guy behaved this way and was silent, or encouraged it, I would expect it–or any other employer–to be found not liable.

2 Likes

Well, one can’t say for sure, but Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation with a reasonable prior distribution on the number and distribution of teeth suggests that an average of 37 is necessary.

This assumes an edentate rate of 15% among Trumpets/Trumpettes and that ‘full set of teeth’ means 8 each incisors, 4 canines, 8 pre-molars, and 8 molars. The model simplifies by assuming that upper/lower, laterally symmetric, and within-type (e.g., lateral incisors and center incisors) are exchangeable. These simplifications have the likely effect of reducing the mean.

ETA: /snark. This was one of the 98% of all statistics that was made up. In the case of Donnie Two-Scoops, 107% of all statistics are made up.

5 Likes

I think the plaintiff would have to show that the Trump campaign solicited that behavior. As foul as that campaign was I don’t think you could make that case. This is the kind of trivial lawsuit that the GOP used to rail against 15 years ago. But that’s when their favorite spit for Democrats was “character”. Don’t hear about that much anymore.

3 Likes

Appeals judges ruled that the Trump campaign couldn’t be sued because Phillip was working in 2016 as an independent contractor with minimal direction from higher Trump campaign officials.

Another “coffee boy,” eh?

No, because then we’d have to talk about “character”, or talk about that “character” in the WH. Loser for them either way.