Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Why would a rape survivor endorse Donald Trump?

Published

on

Opinion: Why would a rape survivor endorse Donald Trump?

Before getting his head bitten off by Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace on Sunday, ABC News “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos had asked her a perfectly reasonable question.

Why, as a rape survivor, he wondered, would you support someone for president who sexually abuses women?

Opinion Columnist

Robin Abcarian

Advertisement

Stephanopoulos had just played a 2019 clip of Mace, then a member of the South Carolina Legislature, speaking emotionally about having been raped at 16, how ashamed she had been and how long it took her to come forward because she was scared no one would believe her. She was asking state lawmakers, in the most personal way, to carve an exception for rape and incest into a draconian anti-abortion bill, which they did.

Describing Mace’s testimony as “candid and courageous,” Stephanopoulos asked why, given that history, she would support former President Trump.

“Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape,” Stephanopoulos said. “How do you square that endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?”

That circle can only be squared on Planet MAGA, where nothing the former president has ever done is considered disqualifying. In the surreal exchange that followed, Mace repeatedly accused Stephanopoulos of trying to shame her as a rape victim, and declared that his very question would make it more difficult for rape survivors to come forward.

Advertisement

“I live with shame, and you’re asking me a question about my political choices trying to shame me as a rape victim,” said Mace, “and I find it disgusting.”

“It’s not about shaming you,” Stephanopoulos replied. “It’s a question about Donald Trump.”

How I hate to write this, but I don’t think I have ever seen a woman invoke the rape card like this. So disingenuous. So damaging.

And before you start yelling about how Trump was not technically found guilty of having raped E. Jean Carroll, it’s important to remember that even the judge in that case said that what Trump did to Carroll all those years ago in a Bergdorf dressing room was, indeed, rape.

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Advertisement

Not content to accuse Stephanopoulos of trying to shame her, Mace also accused Carroll of trivializing sexual assault by making a small joke about how she might spend the $83 million she was awarded by the juries in her two defamation cases.

“And quite frankly, E. Jean Carroll’s comments, when she did get the judgment, joking about what she was gonna buy?” said Mace. “It makes it harder for women to come forward when they make a mockery out of rape.”

I’m just guessing here, but I think news that a victim’s attacker has to pay her millions of dollars in damages for saying she lied about it might inspire others to come forward. Maybe even in droves.

Anyway, what Carroll said hardly trivialized rape: “I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates,” Carroll said on “Good Morning America” in January. “If it will cause him pain for me to give money to certain things, that’s my intent. Well, perhaps a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.”

On Sunday, to her credit, Carroll refused to tangle with Mace, instead posting on X that she wished Mace well.

Advertisement

“And,” Carroll added, “I salute all survivors for their strength, endurance, and holding on to their sanity.”

That was a neat trick Mace tried to pull off — trying to shame Carroll while declaring herself to be the real shaming victim.

Mace is not the only high-profile Republican lawmaker to disingenuously invoke rape to support Trump.

Last week, Alabama Sen. Katie Britt’s much maligned response to President Biden’s State of the Union speech raised rape in a totally bizarre way. Britt, whose histrionic presentation instantly became fodder for “Saturday Night Live,” implied that Biden’s border policies were to blame for the sex trafficking of a Mexican woman who, as it happens, was actually exploited in Mexico during the George W. Bush administration.

“The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoe box of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end,” Britt said, her voice trembling with emotion. “We wouldn’t be OK with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.”

Advertisement

I doubt Britt believed what she was saying, just as I doubt Mace really believed that Stephanopoulos was trying to shame her. This is political theater at its worst

In Mace’s case, trying to turn the tables on Stephanopoulos was a convenient way of deflecting her obvious hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy of all the family-values-professing types who embrace the reelection of the twice-impeached former president who is still facing 91 felony counts for a wide variety of crimes, and who has bragged — please, let’s not forget — that he can grab women by the genitals with impunity.

Like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and countless other Republicans, Mace once condemned Trump, blamed him for the insurrection and declared he was unfit for office.

Her change of heart came about, she told Stephanopoulos, because “I listened to my voters in South Carolina, and they have moved beyond Jan. 6.”

But she never explained why, as an outspoken advocate for survivors of rape, she supports a man judged to be guilty of that very misdeed.

Advertisement

That, I would suggest, is because she can’t. Her only defense, as she demonstrated last week, is a nonsensical offense.

@robinkabcarian

Advertisement

Politics

Governor’s race wildly unpredictable two weeks before Californians receive ballots

Published

on

Governor’s race wildly unpredictable two weeks before Californians receive ballots

The most unpredictable California governor’s race in recent history took another set of dizzying turns on Monday, with former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra surging after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in the face of sexual assault and misconduct allegations, and former state Controller Betty Yee ending her bid.

The race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is the first in a quarter of a century with no clear front-runner and a sprawling field of candidates who have been jockeying for the attention of Californians, who are just beginning to pay attention to the campaign two weeks before ballots arrive in their mailboxes.

“I certainly could not have imagined the twists and the disturbing turns that this race has taken,” Yee said as she announced she was dropping out. “But through it all, my values and my vision for California has never wavered.”

A poll released Monday by the state Democratic Party — its first since Swalwell (D-Dublin) dropped out — showed Becerra’s support jumped nine points to 13%, placing him in a tie with Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior. Former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County saw a slight bump to 10% from 7%, while the remaining Democrats in the contest were mired in the low single digits.

The party began the surveys out of concern that Democrats could be shut out of the governor’s race because of California’s unique primary system, where the top two vote-getters in the June 2 primary move on to the November general election regardless of political party.

Advertisement

“I continue to believe there are too many Democrats in the field,” California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks told reporters Monday. “My call for candidates to honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaigns still stands, especially if you are stalled in the single digits, seeing financial resources dry up and/or are failing to pick up additional support.”

Hicks and other party leaders and allies had unsuccessfully urged low-polling candidates to reconsider their candidacies before the filing deadline in an attempt to cull the field and avoid splintering the Democratic vote. Though most did not name candidates who they thought should think about their viability, Yee was widely believed to be among them.

Yee became emotional as she said on Monday that she decided to withdraw from the race because she wasn’t able to raise the resources necessary to compete in the state. She also said her message of competency and experience wasn’t resonating among voters who were seeking a fiery foil to President Trump, not “Boring Betty,” as she dubbed herself. Yee said she would assess the field before making an announcement on whether she would endorse one of her fellow Democrats.

Becerra was another candidate believed to be a target of party leaders’ efforts to shrink the field. But he held on and apparently benefited from Swalwell’s downfall.

“I’m not the richest candidate, I’m not the slickest candidate, but I am the guy that’s got you,” Becerra said, rallying supporters in Los Angeles on Saturday.

Advertisement

The audience was filled with members of labor groups backing the longtime politician, and Becerra told them he’d serve as a “union man” in the governor’s office.

Pro- and anti-Becerra forces tussled outside the town hall after two people, who declined to identify whom they were working for, passed out fliers highlighting critical media investigations of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the migrant crisis when the agency was led by Becerra.

Pro-Becerra attendees grabbed the fliers and told the men to go away, prompting a security guard to intervene.

The question is whether Becerra, who also served as state attorney general, a member of Congress and a state Assembly member, can raise the funds necessary to compete in a state with some of the nation’s most expensive media markets. And he was tied in the state party poll with a billionaire who dumped an additional $12.1 million of his own money into his campaign last week.

Steyer’s total investment in his bid reached $133 million, according to the California secretary of state’s office. He also received the endorsement of Our Revolution, a progressive political organization founded by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Advertisement

“We’ve never endorsed a billionaire — but Tom Steyer is using his position to upset the system,” the group posted on X on Monday. “As Our Revolution executive director Joseph Geevarghese told @theintercept, ‘He’s been a partner in the movement. Most billionaires have used their wealth and privilege to lock in the status quo. Tom is doing the opposite.’”

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who is also running for governor, accused Steyer of hypocrisy for the hedge fund he founded profiting from investments in private prisons being used to house ICE detainees, and Steyer calling for the abolishment of ICE.

Steyer got “rich investing off the ICE infrastructure he now wants to abolish,” Mahan posted on Instagram.

Steyer, who sold his stake in the hedge fund in 2012, has said he ordered the company to divest from the private prison company and has repeatedly expressed remorse about his former firm’s ties with the detention company.

Mahan also appeared Monday at a Hollywood production lot to announce his proposal for a special fund to lure sporting events, concerts and other productions to California as part of his plan to help the struggling film and television industry.

Advertisement

An independent effort supporting Mahan has also raised roughly $11 million since Swalwell left the race.

Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Nixon from Sacramento. Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

US military announces another deadly strike against ‘narco-terrorists’

Published

on

US military announces another deadly strike against ‘narco-terrorists’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The U.S. military announced another deadly strike against a vessel that it alleges was involved in “narco-trafficking” efforts.

“On April 19, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations,” U.S. Southern Command indicated in a post on X.

“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” the post continued.

US MILITARY KILLS 2 SUSPECTED CARTEL OPERATIVES IN LATEST EASTERN PACIFIC LETHAL STRIKE, SOUTHCOM SAYS

Advertisement

The U.S. military announced that it killed three “narco-terrorists” in a strike in the Caribbean on Sunday, April 19, 2026. (@Soutcom via X)

SOUTHCOM indicated that the attack killed three men.

“Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No U.S. military forces were harmed,” the post noted.

President Donald Trump’s administration has carried out dozens of deadly strikes against vessels of alleged “narco-terrorists.”

US MILITARY CONDUCTS MORE DEADLY STRIKES AGAINST VESSELS OF ALLEGED ‘NARCO-TERRORISTS’

Advertisement

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Francis L. Donovan, nominee for commander of U.S. Southern Command, testifies during his Senate confirmatino hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 15, 2026. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

In a completely different part of the world, amid ongoing tensions between America and Iran, the U.S. attacked an Iranian-flagged cargo ship on April 19.

“Guided-missile destroyer USS Spruance (DDG 111) intercepted M/V Touska as it transited the north Arabian Sea at 17 knots enroute to Bandar Abbas, Iran. American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade,” U.S. Central Command noted.

US SEIZES IRANIAN SHIP AFTER OPENING FIRE; PAKISTAN TALKS IN DOUBT

President Donald Trump on the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 16, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“After Touska’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings over a six-hour period, Spruance directed the vessel to evacuate its engine room. Spruance disabled Touska’s propulsion by firing several rounds from the destroyer’s 5-inch MK 45 Gun into Touska’s engine room. U.S. Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit later boarded the non-compliant vessel, which remains in U.S. custody,” CENTCOM noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Uproar over mama bear killing could help launch a state wildlife coexistence program

Published

on

Uproar over mama bear killing could help launch a state wildlife coexistence program

A month after a public uproar over a mama bear being euthanized after swiping at a resident in Monrovia, state lawmakers are considering mandating the use of nonlethal ways to help allow wildlife and humans to coexist.

Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) said she believes the bear’s death, and the state’s decision to kill four wolves last year that were preying on cattle, raised public concern.

“That made everybody realize we have to do better here,” she told The Times on Thursday. “We need to recognize the importance of seeing ourselves, humans, as part of a larger ecosystem that includes animals and plants and our world and trying to protect it.”

Senate Bill 1135, introduced by Blakespear, would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to create the Wildlife Coexistence Program, which would provide public education, offer technical assistance and maintain a statewide incident reporting system. It would help communities deploy nonlethal devices to deter predators, like barriers or noise and light machines.

At a legislative hearing on Tuesday, Blakespear told the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water that a three-year state initiative offering similar services was seeing positive results — until it was discontinued two years ago after funding ran dry. She said it was time to implement a permanent program.

Advertisement

“Human population growth, habitat loss and the growth of industry across California inevitably leads to interaction between humans and wildlife,” Blakespear told legislators. “No two animal species are the same and each has unique behavior patterns and territories. SB 1135 recognizes these differences and gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs.”

The bill would also rename a state program that reimburses ranchers who lose livestock to wolves, calling it the Wolf-Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program. It would require ranchers seeking compensation to show they were using nonlethal deterrents approved by the department.

Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) stressed that life in rural areas is different than living in a city. She said some families and cattle ranchers have a genuine fear of predators.

“When these baby calves drop on the ground and then two wolves start ripping them apart, it’s not the prettiest thing you’ve ever witnessed,” said Grove, who abstained from voting on the measure. “These wolves are not puppies.”

More than 30 organizations are supporting the legislation, including the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, California State Assn. of Counties, Animal Legal Defense Fund and Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife.

Advertisement

The California Farm Bureau and the California Cattlemen’s Assn. are in opposition due to concerns over funding.

Last month, Blakespear sent a letter to the chair of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review requesting $48.8 million to implement the legislation, with $25 million earmarked for addressing wolf encounters. Half of the money for wolf conflicts would go toward deterrents; the remainder would compensate ranchers for their losses.

Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs cattlemen’s association, said the organization is concerned about that division of funding — especially if funding is reduced.

Wilbur told legislators Tuesday that the organization supports some aspects of the bill and was having productive conversations with Blakespear to address their concerns.

The bill ultimately passed the committee with a 5-to-1 vote and now heads to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Advertisement

Human wildlife conflicts have made headlines in California recently, with a bear refusing to leave a basement for weeks in Altadena and a mama bear dubbed Blondie crossing paths last month with a woman walking her dog in Monrovia.

Blondie swiped the woman’s leg, and was subsequently euthanized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Her two cubs were sent to the San Diego Humane Society’s Ramona Wildlife Center. The bear’s death upset many in the community, as thousands had signed a petition calling for other solutions, like relocation.

Deadly wildlife attacks on humans, however, are rare in California.

There have been six reported human fatalities from mountain lions since 1890, according to the state Fish and Wildlife Department. The agency recorded one human fatality from a coyote in 1981 and another fatality from a black bear in 2023. The department has no recorded human fatalities from gray wolves.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending