Comments on: Marion Barry Caught On Tape (Again)

By: Mike Licht

Mike Licht — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:30:25 +0000

About those Barry voicemail messages: July is National Cell Phone Courtesy Month.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/marion-barry-observes-cell-phone-courtesy-month/

By: Angry Al Gonzales

Angry Al Gonzales — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:55:15 +0000

Ms. Watts was sexually harassed while working. That is a per se violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

My rap to Mary Cheh is not on-the-job sexual harassment, Q. While gauche, perhaps, it is not actionable. Nevertheless, thanks for the comment.

By: Q

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:14:40 +0000

Good Lord Angry Al, we already had Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, WE DON'T NEED THIS? Did you know that your amorous request of Mary Cheh is ALSO sexual harassment in the third person?

By: Angry Al Gonzales

Angry Al Gonzales — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:01:31 +0000

Ms Watts needs a good employment lawyer from the plaintiffs bar. Her case is worth at least $400-500 K in good cash money from the District.

It looks like a per se sexual harassment case. Given Barry's ungentlemanly conduct, it should be worth a half million dollars.

By: Angry Al Gonzales

Angry Al Gonzales — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:24:51 +0000

I'd love to sex up Mary Cheh for $20,000, & I'd never refuse to give her oral sex. I love you, Mary!

By: DCBob

DCBob — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:12:51 +0000

I don't know if it is obviously prostitution from a prosecution stand point. Barry may be inside that line as well.

By: Angry Al Gonzales

Angry Al Gonzales — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:19:03 +0000

This was obviously sex for money. What about the prostitution statutes? Both Mayor Barry & this woman are guilty of prostitution.

Just because my tax dollars paid for this woman to have sex with Mayor Barry doesn't mean that prostitution statutes don't apply. If the US Attorney had any balls or ovaries, he'd charge both parties with prostitution.