• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawsuit: Trump campaign failed to act after staffer pulled gun

Ahem- he had a gun pointed at him. Guess you missed that tidbit.

I said, "after he put the gun away, I would have kicked the **** out of him". Maybe you missed that tidbit.
 
Ahem- he had a gun pointed at him. Guess you missed that tidbit.

No, apdst is just a badass mf from his keyboard 1,000 miles away and he ain't skeered of no guns. ;)
 
Just in case anyone wonders why DTs had what seems to be an abundance of lawsuits...case on point.
That and his habit of not paying his bills, that should be par for the course in Washington.
 
He said he wanted a career in politics, working for Trump through November is good experience, he might fear not being believed, or that his superiors wouldn't back him, damaging future prospects in politics, he had a pregnant wife and wanted to keep the job, etc.
Nope. He's out telling the press "I figured the campaign would handle it and that hasn't happened and here we are," -- his lawsuit only states that he "forewent alerting the authorities because putting Mr. Trump in the White House was his goal." None of what you write above is, or will be, part of the case.*

LOL, we don't know the facts, so of cour$e initially you imply he'$ only $uing for the money, and not because he's got a legitimate complaint against the campaign
It is a fact that he has filed a lawsuit against the campaign. And yes, I implied that he's going this route because he's after some big money - explicitly calling this a theory.

It is not a fact that the campaign had enough information to fire this guy but failed to do so. This is not yet known. Yet, you're carrying on about how the Trump campaign should have fired him and their failure to do so is "of course the problem," yadda yadda yadda.

Do you really not see the difference?
 
Nope. He's out telling the press "I figured the campaign would handle it and that hasn't happened and here we are," -- his lawsuit only states that he "forewent alerting the authorities because putting Mr. Trump in the White House was his goal." None of what you write above is, or will be, part of the case.*

Nope? LOL.

Seems you missed a bit, because some of that is part of the case, like point 35 (could not tell anyone because of Phillip's reputation for violent outbursts and retaliation, and that he "could not trust his own supervisor"), point 36 (needed paychecks to support pregnant wife and two kids), 37 (fear of retribution again), and 40 (long time GOP operative) and I assume wanted to continue that, which might be threatened if he complained, or called the cops, and his supervisors didn't back him up).

And I wasn't predicting what would be part of the case but why he and many others might not call the cops in that situation - that was I thought made clear with this part you clipped, "Obviously there are lots of reasons why people don't always call the cops, and being loyal to Trump is just one of them."

It is a fact that he has filed a lawsuit against the campaign. And yes, I implied that he's going this route because he's after some big money - explicitly calling this a theory.

It is not a fact that the campaign had enough information to fire this guy but failed to do so. This is not yet known. Yet, you're carrying on about how the Trump campaign should have fired him and their failure to do so is "of course the problem," yadda yadda yadda.

Do you really not see the difference?[/QUOTE]

It's also a "theory" based on the lawsuit that he went after the campaign because they failed in their basic duty and are liable.

But this is sort of pointless - obviously we don't know if ANYTHING happened. For all we know he made up the incident, the dates, the times, who he called, the others he alleges were threatened by the guy, several of whom he asserts alerted the campaign, several specific conversations, moving his family, the circumstances of his quitting, that the guy even has a gun, etc. all of which will be subject to cross examination, verification etc. If so the conversation is pointless.

Assuming any of it's true, the point I'm making is the problem if there is one simply is NOT whether or not he called the cops - there are lots of easily understandable reasons why not - he gives several in the document, and there are others. It's that any responsible employer would have pretty much immediately fired the guy on the spot or suspended him while an investigation takes place. There's no evidence any of that happened.
 
Nope? LOL.

Seems you missed a bit, because some of that is part of the case, like point 35 (could not tell anyone because of Phillip's reputation for violent outbursts and retaliation, and that he "could not trust his own supervisor"), point 36 (needed paychecks to support pregnant wife and two kids), 37 (fear of retribution again), and 40 (long time GOP operative) and I assume wanted to continue that, which might be threatened if he complained, or called the cops, and his supervisors didn't back him up).

And I wasn't predicting what would be part of the case but why he and many others might not call the cops in that situation - that was I thought made clear with this part you clipped, "Obviously there are lots of reasons why people don't always call the cops, and being loyal to Trump is just one of them."
You did make that clear, and that's precisely where my comment was aimed. None of those claims were made as reasons for why he didn't call the cops. I quoted the only two reasons they've provided.

You did remind me that I included an asterisk in my comment, but forgot the note at the bottom:

*Though I love how they claim in paragraph 35 that "Vincent believed that he could not trust his own supervisor, Stuart Jolly, out of fear that he would try to cover up what had happened" -- apparently oblivious to their earlier claim in paragraph 29 that Stuart Jolly was one of the first people he told - apparently the same night it happened!!
 
Last edited:
Assuming any of it's true, the point I'm making is the problem if there is one simply is NOT whether or not he called the cops - there are lots of easily understandable reasons why not - he gives several in the document, and there are others. It's that any responsible employer would have pretty much immediately fired the guy on the spot or suspended him while an investigation takes place. There's no evidence any of that happened.
I think we agree that if the claims he is making are true (the campaign had good reason to fire the guy and avoid this whole incident, but failed to do so) then he has a strong case. I think we mostly just disagree on how believable his story is.
 
I'm just not a *****.

Why weren't the cops called? The plaintiff doesn't need anyone's permission for that? That's a damn good question: Why didn't the plaintiff call the cops?

The OP said he tried to work it out internally $$$$$$.

That didn't work, so now this.
 
Back
Top Bottom