On Trump - Recantation and Refutation

or "The Buzz from Buzzfeed."

In a retweet by Katrina Pierson (yes, she of #KatrinaPiersonHistory fame) spokesperson for the Trump campaign, of a tweet by Lynn Patton (#DeplorableAndProud, her words, not mine. A kind of cognitive dissonance, oxymoron type deal), she gleefully points to a story of recantation (yes, that is a tangled web, and yes, I mean that to be a clever allusion to the aphorism on deception). Initially, former New Mexico teen beauty contestant Victoria Hughes admitted in an article by Buzzfeed that: “I was the eldest delegate at age 19 and was in the very back of the large dressing room. I recall chaperons saying that we had a visitor and to get covered up,” she wrote. “The black curtains opened and in walks Mr. Trump smiling. He wished us all good luck, did not stay very long and left. As teenagers, it no doubt caught us off guard, as the timing of the entrance could’ve been better and less awkward for us all.”

She suggests that it all happened quickly, even though they had been warned. I suggest that Trump didn't have to go in there at that precise moment; he could have waited a few minutes until the girls were prepared to receive guests. Nobody is too important to wait three minutes for teenage girls to be properly clothed. If they were given an appropriate amount of time, why would she have said the girls were “caught off guard?”

In a follow-up phone interview with KOB4, in Albuquerque, Hughes now claims, that the timing was bad only because they were nervous about the live show, why would that be termed “awkward.” It is not “awkward” for a 19-year-old to meet a big-wig before a show; they are used to being in the spotlight. It may be merely nerve-wracking or inconvenient-certainly not awkward. She didn't mis-speak, as she has had another 19 years to craft her story in her mind. Why would she not state that the dressing room was indeed blocked off so Trump couldn't see anything, if that were the case? Seems an important detail.

The incident obviously made an impression if she was able to so clearly remember it 19 years later and agree to be part of a story investigating Trump. Her initial remarks were not complimentary despite saying later that she didn't mean them to be derogatory towards Trump and claims that there was more that the story didn't mention. Nothing she could have said in unreported elaboration could negate what she admits was said at the time of the interview. Unless the unquoted statements were on the order of “sorry, I lied about that; let me tell you what really happened” - which is what she is saying now, after the fact – or, “I misspoke, let me clarify. She did not claim either of these in the recantation.

In a non-quoted statement, the writer of the refutation article even admits that Hughes did not know if there were other girls that were undressed. I don't care how big the dressing room is, you can usually see across it, if not her, then a grown man could. Admittedly, some dressing rooms are divided into many obscuring cubicles. But since there were three other complainants upset about being in various stages of undress when a man walked in, this statement isn't exculpatory by any means. Even so, Trump had no problem surprising young girls, and I have to suspect, based on the many audio recordings we have, that he would have been hopeful to catch them at an “awkward” moment. In any case, the chaperons should be ashamed for not protecting these girls better.

Trump himself now claims “I've never even met these people!” Hughes said that he most certainly did, at least as a group, as she didn't deny that part of the story. So he is lying about even that. I would expect a pedophile and sexual predator to lie about accusations, so that doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that any woman, let alone an experienced elder, albeit as political operatives (ew!), would want to lie and distort protect and defend a man like Donald Trump (double ew!). If this case isn't convincing of their complicity in a reign of terror,, there are many more that we have clear video and audio evidence of. They are proven elsewhere. Pierson, Patton, and Conway, you are getting paid by Trump a goodly sum, and it is obviously enough for you to sell your soul to the devil. The question is: “what price your soul?”

We know that Hughes herself is not averse to unabashedly displaying her clothed body for attention and a possible tiara. I would suggest that some amount equal to the value she places on her soul was conferred upon her by Trump, to entice her to change her story, even if unconvincingly. This is a more effective tactic than the threats he often engages in. I do, however, find it comforting that Hughes at least finds lying uncomfortable, judging by the amount of nervous laughter in the refutation audio and desire not to appear on video via Skype. Her microexpressions would have certainly given her away.

Souls are flying of the shelves in the SuperDuperStore called “Trump's Intentional House of Falsehoods.”

~ by T.R. Moore, certified purveyor of certitude regarding the certifiable. (Why, yes Don, I do use Certs instead of Tic-Tacs, and yes, I did intend to use “Don” as a minimizing double entendre with reference to the mob - what do you mean #I'm with Her?)