Kimberly Guilfoyle... more than has met the eye

lizkat

Thread Starter
Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,016
Reaction score
2,239
Wow. Shock and awe day at The New Yorker. I'm used to reading Jane Mayer's takes on dark money in politics. This piece is a little different.


Guilfoyle, as most of us here will know, is a high level campaign staffer and fundraiser for the Trump re-election effort. Her name has even been bandied about as the next RNC chairperson. Most recently she was featured in the Republican's 2020 convention. She's also a former Fox News host. And she's Donald Trump Jr.'s girlfriend... and a former prosecutor in California... and an ex wife of the current governor of California.

I do remember Guilfoyle cheerily yelling "the best is yet to come" back when she delivered that speech at the online convention that renominated Trump.

Well now she's been written up in The New Yorker, as a sort of October surprise, one might assume. This is not necessarily what Guilfoyle was predicting. The piece is quite a read.
 
Last edited:

niji

Power User
I Voted
Posts
139
Reaction score
283
in guilfoile's case, she used her sexuality in an abusive way towards her coworkers and staff.
really bizarre actions on her part and illegal. period.

but i have been thinking there might be something more fundamental.
i think there is a r vs d people, at a fundamental level, for either sex, how and what a person feels in terms about the topic of sexuality in general.

how that sexuality is expressed. under what circumstances. how openly.
in the context of purported holier than thou family values that are just a pretext.
or trying to prevent sex outside of marriage instead of dealing with the issue with education at early ages.

is there a difference in r and d people in how and under what circumstances expressing one's sexuality is considered within a norm?
is the difference that d people more openly flaunt sexual norms but try to stay within what is considered pc?
and that r people use family and god as simply a cover? and therefore their actual actions seem more duplicitous?
is it simply that r people want to think they are better than animal d people?

what's going on?
 

Alli

Moderator
Staff member
I Voted
Posts
1,472
Reaction score
2,402
One of the doctors who frequently visits MSNBC just recommended that everyone who was around Hicks including the president should quarantine for two weeks. The daily testing is inadequate.
 

SuperMatt

Site Champ
I Voted
Posts
573
Reaction score
934
One of the doctors who frequently visits MSNBC just recommended that everyone who was around Hicks including the president should quarantine for two weeks. The daily testing is inadequate.

I heard on the radio today scientists saying we should be testing 4 million a day. We haven’t surpassed 1 million a day they said,
 

lizkat

Thread Starter
Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,016
Reaction score
2,239
Wow. Talk about birds of a feather. She fits right in with the Trump family.

Yep, in so many ways. I read that piece twice and my jaw is still dropping that at least some edges of this were known back when Stelter was writing his book Hoax and Huffpost had reported some info related to it in 2018. And yet Guilfoyle somehow ends up as finance chair of Trump's campaign with all those red flags on the field behind her already: an attempt to buy her assistant's silence, then after the Murdochs had finally had it with Roger Ailes and had brought in lawyers for a serious house cleaning at Fox, there was eventually a multi-million-$$ settlement by Fox with Guilfoyle's assistant... and finally Fox forcing Guilfoyle herself out with a negotiated severance.

Meanwhile Guilfoyle refused interview with Mayer for this writeup but issued a public statement denying she ever yada yada yada... however some contacts of hers had approached Mayer during the runup to this piece in the New Yorker, trying to discredit the assistant who had refused hush money and complained to Fox.

When the assistant declined the offer of money, Guilfoyle warned—in a manner that the assistant regarded as threatening—that, if she spoke candidly to the lawyers, some aspects of the assistant’s private life that Guilfoyle knew about might be exposed. In fact, as I reported on this story, associates of Guilfoyle’s contacted me, offering personal details about the assistant, evidently in hopes of damaging her credibility and leading me not to publish this report.

Wow. Mind boggling, not least that someone would be stupid enough to try to wave Jane Mayer off research for an article. Idiots. The Koch Brothers might have warned anyone off such a move, all things about her book Dark Money considered. But trying to get a piece of inconvenient journalism to go away does make Guilfoyle seem to fit right in with the Trumps, yeah.
 

lizkat

Thread Starter
Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,016
Reaction score
2,239
There had already been complaints from Trump high dollar donors about the way Guilfoyle and her staff were spending money and using other resources while presumably raising more dough for Trump's re-election effort.

That plus Mayer's now published expansion past previously reported edges of the sexual harassment and attempted hush-money / coverup issues floating around Guilfoyle may not fly well with those donors either.

But you never know. Those access-seeking donors with money to burn always have their eye on the prize, which is this: what more of such dough could result for them from Trump's re-election?

Everything else is for today-only in their social media feeds, or so they have to hope. Still, that was some drop by Mayer.
 
Top Bottom