We’re getting to the point where a man can’t offer a woman a beverage without risking being accused of sexual harassment. It’s bad, and it’s only getting worse. Men, you should probably know that tweets that have nothing to do with sexual harassment can now be considered sexual harassment.
It all started with this.
President Trump should resign. But, of course, he won't hold himself accountable. Therefore, Congress should investigate the multiple sexual harassment and assault allegations against him.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 11, 2017
Trump responded. He basically called Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a political animal who has no principles.
Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2017
Whoa whoa whoa! SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Did you catch that? He said she’d “do anything for them” and that OBVIOUSLY means she was offering sexual services! This is vile language. Trump is LITERALLY SLUT-SHAMING GILLIBRAND.
You think I’m exaggerating? Think again.
(and would do anything for them)
Vile language attempting at slut shame a US Senator from the mouth of a sexual predator president who is so out of touch with consequence that he is willing to lie that he solicited sex for donations and thinks it makes someone else look bad. https://t.co/nC3cwMsFbS
— Av Gutman (@abgutman) December 12, 2017
Did you see anything in that tweet about soliciting sex? I didn’t.
Misogyny in real time….nice.
— Tripletma (@tripletma) December 12, 2017
Yes! SOOOOO misogynistic! You cannot criticize a female senator, Mr. President. That is sexist!
"and would do anything for them" – he's trying to imply she offered him sexual favours? This won't end well. https://t.co/itCizikOCM
— Arieh Kovler (@ariehkovler) December 12, 2017
This reads like sexual harassment. @SenGillibrand calls for him to be disciplined, and he implies, well, exactly what “and would do anything for them” implies. https://t.co/1jVsExFJHI
— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) December 12, 2017
"And would do anything for them". What does that mean, @realDonaldTrump?! You, a man, accused by more than a dozen credible women of assault and harassment, has the audacity make this vile, disgusting implication. SHAME! https://t.co/Cx2a1X2AWA
— Patti Solis Doyle (@PattiSolisDoyle) December 12, 2017
"and would do anything for them"
Way to remind us of how you have such respect for women, Mr. President. You just insinuated that she traded "favors" for campaign contributions. https://t.co/gDovoZxIG8
— Bradley P. Moss, Esq (@BradMossEsq) December 12, 2017
Our repugnant, rancid pig of a @POTUS wrote this about a female Senator: "would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them)"@GOP,this is ok? Fauxminist fraud @IvankaTrump, you busy lighting the Menorah? #TrumpResignNOW
— Lesley Abravanel (@lesleyabravanel) December 12, 2017
“And would do anything for them”. Is he trying to insinuate something sexual here? Because it sure AF seems that way to me.
— Kathleen Smith (@KikkiPlanet) December 12, 2017
There are tons of politicians who would sell their souls to the devil for campaign cash. They strike shady deals and make sketchy legislative promises. That’s not sexual. During the election, we always said Hillary would “do anything” to win. I meant lie, cheat and steal. Never once when I said that was I thinking of Hillary offering sexual favors. BRB– dry heaving.
Gillibrand has responded.
You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office. https://t.co/UbQZqubXZv
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 12, 2017
I’m just gonna leave this here.
Still true. Everyone’s always blaming him for everything.
h/t Twitchy