Why Ginger Lee HAD to Deny Sexting with Weiner, Even If It Was True; Or “Huma’s Case Against Ginger.”
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Of course all of this is rapidly becoming moot now. But yesterday’s press conference with Ginger Lee didn’t make sense on several levels and I have an interesting theory as to why.
First, why was Gloria Allred or any lawyer involved in that press conference? There wasn’t (as far as I know) any legal action threatened and the facts didn’t give rise to a cause of action. So why the lawyers? Why not instead a publicist? (Although to be fair, Allred is arguably a publicist, too.)
Further it seemed strange for Ginger Lee to claim that she rebuffed Weiner’s advances. Her blog and tweet feed were full of professions of love for the man. For instance, on May 27th, literally the same day that he sent the Weinerpic, she writes on her blog:
Whoa….I get a dose of Anthony Weiner live before I go to work this evening.
Weiner before work. Me likey.
Does that make me a weirdo?
Does this sound like someone who had been subjected to unwanted advances by a married politician and rebuffed them? You would think that if she turned down his advances, that she would be avoiding any posts that might give him inappropriate hope for a rendezvous. Instead, that is what she wrote. So for me, to say her story is suspicious is an understatement.
But then something occurred to me this morning, having slept on it. Even if it was true, it would be dangerous to admit to any kind of inappropriate relationship with Weiner because she could be sued.
You see there are still states that allow for a cause of action for alienation of affection—that is basically the tort of breaking up a person’s marriage. Mind you, only Huma could take advantag of this tort. It doesn’t exist in most states but many of you might know that this cause of action exists in North Carolina because there was talk of Elizabeth Edwards suing Reille Hunter for exactly that (I don’t know if anything ever came of that). So I began to wonder where Ginger Lee lived and what the law of her state said. According to her blog, she lives in Tennessee, and that state has abolished that legal action. But that isn’t far from North Carolina, and I figured an, ahem, adult entertainer like her probably travelled for her job, so it probably wouldn’t be hard for her to find herself there.
And what do you know, she probably did. If you go to her schedule page, you can see that she was dancing in Jacksonville, from March 24-26, 2011 and listed herself as “available to shoot” in North Carolina from March 28 to April 1. So, if she kept that schedule she spent part of her time in North Carolina. Oh, and when was the first known contact from Weiner? March 13, 2011.
And what exactly is covered by the tort?
A claim for alienation of affection requires proof of three elements: (1) there was a marriage with love and affection existing between the husband and wife; (2) that love and affection was alienated; and (3) the malicious acts of the defendant produced the loss of that love and affection.
(Pharr v. Beck, 147 N.C. App. 268 (N.C. App., 2001)) Notice that this is not limited to affairs, but anything that might break up a marriage. Let me give you a concrete example. I know a married couple (names withheld, obviously) that went through a very rough patch many years ago when the wife was told she had tested positive a venereal disease. Everyone knew that she never cheated so the only way she could have gotten it was by her husband. He flat out denied it and their marriage was badly strained.
The story ends happily, however. She decided to believe him (after many ugly fights) and around a decade later, she goes back to the doctor and new tests show that… she never had the disease in the first place. The doctor screwed up and it almost caused the disintegration of their marriage.
Now in that example it was just an accident and thus no one could call it malicious. But if you imagine a scenario where the doctor deliberately faked those results and it led to a divorce, and that would appear to fit the elements.
Also, I do believe a divorce has to occur as a necessary element of the claim.
But there is also the thorny issue of whether that statute could even be applied to Ms. Lee. There is no question that a North Carolina court can hear the case. But the issue is which state’s laws will apply North Carolina, or another jurisdicton’s law, which might not recognize this cause of action? In tort actions—when you wrong a person or their property—North Carolina follows the rule of lex loci, which means the place of the injury. The injury here would likely to be considered the harm to Weiner’s marriage, which most likely occurred in New York or Washingotn, D.C., or both, which don’t have this cause of action (again most states don’t). And there is a certain logic to the idea that this doctrine should only be used to protect the marriage of North Carolinians. On the other hand, many states refuse to give full faith and credit to these causes of action, so that might make them less inclined to apply the law of other jurisdictions.
But the most salient point is this: no one can be certain what the law will say on the subject. As best as I can tell, this would be the first time North Carolina’s courts have addressed the issue (recognizing that the search tools at my disposal for “recreational” legal research is not nearly as good as the tools I have for job-related legal research). So any good lawyer would tell you to deny any alienation of affection if your conduct has any chance of having occurred in North Carolina. (Mind you, lawyers cannot support perjury, but we are not talking about testimony, just PR).
It also suggests a motive for Lee’s call for Weiner to resign. Her argument was that by lying, this meant she couldn’t trust him. But if she thought about it, he had been lying all along to his wife, or at least deceiving her into thinking he was faithful. Seriously it is hard to engage in any adultery without some lying. So for Lee to make that argument, makes very little sense.
Now perhaps this is just the product of confused thinking on her part. Or perhaps they were concerned that if he remained in Congress the ethics inquiry would go forward and eventually expose exactly what the nature of their relationship is. So by putting pressure on him to resign, she very well might have been hoping to avoid that inquiry. Of course she would simultaneously be risking anger on his part for joining the chorus against him.
And it explains one other thing, which is why Lee needs a lawyer at all.
Now, let me be very clear. We don’t know what their communications really were. She has denied reciprocating his desires and my only evidence that she didn’t tell the truth is what I showed you in the public record. We can’t be certain that she is lying, but my theory does explain why she want to lie, if and only if the truth is that Rep. Weiner cheated on his wife with her.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
This is very interesting, though I do think it might be difficult to prove that there was a loving relationship if Weiner was sexting girls within a few weeks of his wedding. It seems this was the status quo for Weiner, regardless of Ginger.
I don’t really understand why Ginger would make such ridiculous assertions. She was a [deleted] who was throwing herself at a married man. It’s just a fact. There’s no denying it. If she wants to sue me, I’ll win.
My guess is she is hiding some kind of information, and will settle with Weiner to avoid disclosing it, and the legal threat is a method of concealing why he’s paying her.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 12:50 pmAnother interesting post on Wiener. I’m almost sorry to have him quit. Two questions though. If he was “behaving inappropriately” with minors, will his resignation end any investigation by law enforcement?
and where’d you get the Tweets from 2001?
John
PomeroyJohn (977ce8) — 6/16/2011 @ 12:55 pmFirst, why was Gloria Allred or any lawyer involved in that press conference?
Because there were cameras present?
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
malclave (4f3ec1) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:01 pmDustin,
I don’t think patrick wants you to say that word on his blog, so i censored it for now. if you disagree with me, ask him.
And i understand some of where you are coming from. i mean when verifying that the term “porn star” was fair, i saw where in one video she performed a sex act, on a man, on camera. now if that was done for money, i always ask, “how is that not prostitution?” you are paying someone to have sex. now you might say “but that is paying her to have sex with someone else (presumably” but i ask you this… if you hire a prostitute for a friend, does that mean it suddenly isn’t prostitution.
But in the craziness of the law, they apparently believe that if you film it, its not prostitution.
i think, consistent with the constitution, we absolutely can ban that kind of hard-hard core pornography. the filming is constitutionally, but the payment for sex can be outlawed.
but in our lexicon, shaped by this flawed legal regime, even a hard-hard core porn actress is not a prostitute. absurdly, though, the same activity is prostitution if you turn the camera off.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:01 pmJohn
okay i confess. i am a time traveler.
heh.
joking aside, fixed and you have my thanks.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:03 pmLuv you Aaron. But.possibly.you.are.overthinking.this.
elissa (bfc104) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:04 pmThanks for censoring me, Hitler!
Just kidding. But she is a person who has intercourse in exchange for money. AKA various terms that are very misogynistic if applied towards women who do not have that characteristic.
BTW, here’s an imdb listing for a film titled ‘Teenage ******s’ in which Ginger Lee voluntarily ‘acted’.
I’ve always thought this was very interesting.
And let me be clear: I am not trying to condemn pornos. I think access to this kind of thing appears to have a cathartic impact on a lot of men, actually. It’s not really a big deal at all.
However, Ginger Lee calls herself a feminist. She’s also being quite dishonest. And finally, I think this post’s topic is hitting her exactly where she lives as someone who appealed to a married man. She is responsible for that. The women in all these affairs are somewhat responsible.
Monica, that honduran lady, etc. They know they are violating something very important. That’s what gives them the thrill.
So I do apologize if I went too far in using that word, though I think in this circumstance, she is a dictionary example.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:09 pmI don’t think a lawsuit in North Carolina would go anywhere–the connection is much too slight and tangential, unless one of them actually lived in the state, or at least there was an actual rendezvous involved–you know, one with actual bodies and not tweets.
It’s rather like I punch you in the face in Virginia, and you sue me in Georgia because I stopped over in Savannah for one day while traveling from Florida to Virginia for assault.
Georgia judge: why are you suing here and not in Virginia?
Plaintiff: because tort law is more favorable to me here in Georgia*
Georgia judge: laughs while signing order dismissing lawsuit
*said for the sake of the illustration, and not because I have any reason to think the law in Georgia differs in any meaningful way from the law in Virginia.
Comment by malclave — 6/16/2011 @ 1:01 pm
I think that actually you’re right. what’s a celebrity sex scandal without a celebrity lawyer?
kishnevi (38f6c3) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:17 pmdustin
check your email, too.
and look, imho, the kind of hard core porn she did, if she was a paid “actress” is indistinguishable morally from prostitution. and that is important because i think any legalization of prostitution is profoundly anti-feminist.
for instance, feminists believe it is inherently wrong to committ quid pro quo sexual harrassment, i.e. “sleep with me or you are fired.” But how on earth do you ban that if prostitution is legal? A boss can simply change the job description on a person to secretarial and prostitution services and now he can legally say to his secretary, “sleep with me or you are fired.”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:18 pmBTW, I missed an email explaining some concerns about this, but I want to say: I don’t have any information that Ginger Lee broke any criminal laws for prostitution.
What she did was morally indistinguishable from prostitution, but it’s legal.
And if she sues anyone over this, I promise to call her a lot worse than anything I’ve said in this thread.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:19 pmI wonder if porn contracts are written so the money is paid for rights to distribute the video, rather than the “acting”.
MayBee (081489) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:22 pmAbsolutely no hard feelings about it, Aaron. And you’re not the first to delete something I’ve said from the blog. Patterico’s done it a few times.
It’s not my blog. I don’t really have the right to insist on anything I want posted here.
“for instance, feminists believe it is inherently wrong to committ quid pro quo sexual harrassment, i.e. “sleep with me or you are fired.” But how on earth do you ban that if prostitution is legal? A boss can simply change the job description on a person to secretarial and prostitution services and now he can legally say to his secretary, “sleep with me or you are fired.”
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 6/16/2011 @ 1:18 pm ”
That is fascinating. I have to admit, basically the only two things about Ginger Lee that bug me are my opinion of her honesty lately and her claim to be a feminist. What makes a person who so badly denigrates women a feminist, and someone who just thinks women and men are equal, not one? I think what makes it so is simply stupidity.
There are a whole world of feminist issues that come into play with sexual libertine lifestyles, but it’s not my place to tell Ginger Lee how to live her life. I don’t even care. But I think she is morally very low.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:23 pmIt’s kinda embarrassing to admit this, but the film I saw of Lee was particularly horrible. The plot was of a girl who was taken advantage of by a powerful man who treated her very poorly in a circumstance where she didn’t have a choice. The whole thing catered to the idea it’s really cool and stimulated to relish a woman being absolutely reduced.
This is not the product of a feminist.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:25 pmmaybee
i don’t know. the law does weird things when cameras roll.
like remember the jerry springer show and how they used to have a fist fight like every episode? And Talk Soup gleefully covered it. good times, but…
how is that not assault and battery?
so after i realized that i concluded that it had to be one of two things.
possibility one; it was fake. it was scripted. it was pro-wrestling. so the cops knew they were just putting on a show and no one really touched anyone without their consent.
or possibility two: for some reason the cops thought the fact it was on a show meant it wasn’t a crime.
but if it was real, and i was a cop in their area, i would stand in the show every day and arrest everyone who threw the first punch.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:27 pmHuma is the dog what hasn’t barked.
so to speak
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:29 pmoh. From Dustin’s link you can see Ginger was in a movie with Sasha Gray – that’s the girl in that Soderbergh movie. She was also in Entourage for awhile and she’s gonna be in the Linda Lovelace movie.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:39 pmYeah, that is peculiar. I don’t think it’s possible for a contract to enforceably agree to crimes. And it’s not like they have to press charges for the police to shut that down. I guess I just understand why that would be legal. The few Springer shows I’ve seen do tend to have violence, and some weirdo trying to avoid being beat up for something nasty he did.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:46 pmProlly gonna get in trouble for this, but I loves me some Ginger.
Mike D (9c1418) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:49 pmI wouldn’t be surprised if people were cast to fight on Jerry Springer. Casting calls for talk shows and reality shows go out all the time.
MayBee (081489) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:49 pmLOL
I don’t see anything wrong with that, so long as you aren’t hoping to learn about feminism. And while it’s rude for me to say this: hopefully she’s acting in films where the woman isn’t denigrated disgustingly and completely, as she is in Ginger’s work I’m familiar with. I just hope that’s not a kink anyone out there is cultivating. For all I know, Ginger has other motifs.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:54 pmGinger stated that her support for Planned Parenthood motivated her to contact Wiener. Perhaps Planned Parenthood should considering hiring Ginger as their spokesperson. Think of the publicity.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 1:58 pmdustin
> I don’t think it’s possible for a contract to enforceably agree to crimes.
ah, but what you call a crime is done all the time. a boxing match typically involves an aggreement to committ assault and battery on each other. And of course in pro-wrestingly they do the same things all the time, hence why i call springer show potential pro-wrestling. there is an exception for sports, obviously, and there is an exception for true theater, which is how pro-wrestling is legal.
i mean the sports exception only applies to hitting in the usual course of the game. that’s not to say that a slight violation of the rules becomes a crime, but it has to be sort of the thing you expect as the game is played.
but on the other hand, if you are doing any kind of wrestling, and fall out of the arena, and a guy picks up a chair and hits you with it, if that is real that is a crime.
but if its all theater, meaning they are just oily actors, then its not a crime at all.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:02 pmAs for Springer, it’s only a battery if done without the consent of the other. One could easily make an argument that showing up as a guest at a taping of a Jerry Springer show is implied consent to be hit, just as is stepping into a boxing ring. If I were Springer’s producers, I’d probably have all the guests sign some sort of waiver, to reduce the risk of liability, and that could well also constitute a consent to the battery.
As a former ADA myself, it’s sure not something I’d want to waste my time trying to take to a judge or jury. The public would be quick to point out that time wasted on that is time not spent on REAL crimes that happen out in the community, every day.
The behavior is also not “disturbing the peace” because it’s happening in a private location, and all of the individuals present have consented to it.
As far as having the cops present at every show, they’d either need the consent of the producers/owners of the studio theater, or they’d have to get a warrant, establishing probable cause to believe that on that particular show being taped that day, there was probable cause that a battery would take place.
PatHMV (ce32e8) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:03 pmThis seems like one hell of a stretch.
That pic above does not scream “porn star”, does it?
Hf – is she a local?
JD (380601) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:06 pmI’ve never seen Ginger or Sasha around here but I’m not good with names
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:09 pmTrue. It’s not battery if the contact is not unwanted, and when you enter a boxing contest, you want to engage in the contact. At least generally.
If that’s what all the people on springer did, they are effective actors. They seem often a bit surprised and afraid. But then again, they probably are being effective actors who are playing up the conflict (not sarcasm). As PatHMV says “One could easily make an argument that showing up as a guest at a taping of a Jerry Springer show is implied consent to be hit, ” I don’t know. It’s a factual matter, if if they are consenting, then there is no problem, and if they aren’t, I think it’s a big deal.
this doesn’t seem like such a hurdle. LOL.
And for the record, I’m speaking generally to the ideal law in my head rather than whatever the particulars are. If someone consents, it’s not battery.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:16 pmCareful if any of you talk about this on Ace he will get pissed.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:19 pmWhy in the hell can’t people just say ‘ok’ and be gracious guests? If you want to talk about it on your blog, that’s cool too. It bugs me to see the fear of a lawsuit interfere with public participation of criticism of such a lousy public figure, but Ace doesn’t have infinite dollars with which to defend himself from lawfare, and it’s his blog.
I may just start a blog for Ginger Lee criticism. Oh wait… I don’t really care very enough, like 99% of other morons like me.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:23 pmThat is true Dustin.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:24 pmwait, what is ace getting pissed about us talking about?
JD
um, seriously, go to google, turn off the safe-search function, go into the video and google ginger lee.
she is definitely a porn star. at best you can say “former porn star.” but hasn’t been a former one for long…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:26 pmNot us. His commenters in his threads.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:28 pmBut ace gets pissed anytime vodka goes up in price, which is every other day lately in this economy.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:29 pmBut the reason why he was pissed because people were mocking Weiner.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:30 pmNo. PatriotUSA76 did that with photoshop. You can tell from the shadows. Pranks these days!
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:30 pmI thought it was because he was worried that some of their sarcastic remarks were making claims about Ginger Lee that were potential lawsuit fodder.
As well as richly deserved and hilarious.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:31 pmAce’s garbage is no surprise since he is friends with an amnesty shill moron named Gabe Maalor.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:37 pmif you go to the front page, you get a better sense of why he is getting angry.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:40 pmlet’s just hope that he only goes charles johnson in terms of moderation, not hypocrisy and dishonesty. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:41 pmThere is no comparison between Ace and Chuckles.
And Dohbiden, Ace keeps Gabe around, but also has plenty of other POVs. If he didn’t have shamnesty RINOs, we wouldn’t have a place to bash them, since liberals don’t tolerate dissent.
He’s lost his cool, and he does that an awful awful lot lately, particular as relates to Palin trolls, but let’s not give Charles Johnson a break on his moderation BS.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 2:49 pmAW – I am not disputing her chosen means of earning a living. I was just noting that in the above picture, she does not come across as a stereotypical porn star look.
JD (380601) — 6/16/2011 @ 3:06 pmAce’s commenters create an atmosphere that feels a rowdy locker room or a boys night out. It can be very entertaining, but people can become too uncomfortable with the banter to join the conversation. Patterico’s commenters keep it more polite, and the tone is closer to a faculty dinner discussion.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 3:14 pmMaybe she’s a better actress than anyone gives her credit for – all dolled up and looking innocent and chaste. But when you google her name, about 5 down is a full-on XXX porn flick, (Tube8) with her doing everything, and not behind a paywall.
To get up there and pretend she was offended by Weiner talking about his package is absurd beyond imagination.
Call it what it is – people keep using euphemistic terms when talking about this. Let’s get real. He didn’t Tweet a pic of him in his underwear, it was a picture of his erection in his underwear, and the explicit pic is his erection without.
She’s been referred to as a nice lady with lupus – c’mon. I’m not usually an advocate of the “she was asking for it” assertion, but in this case… at the very least don’t get up there dressed up like a chaste schoolgirl.
Shame on Allred. And at the very least she should have gotten the Tube8 vid pulled offline before staging that charade.
Rose (13d715) — 6/16/2011 @ 3:50 pmI learned something today — neocons are voracious consumers or porn. I’m not going to say I’ve never watched a porn, but I sure as heck don’t follow the ‘actresses’ like you guys do.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 6/16/2011 @ 5:14 pmstari – Is “neocon” code for something? Who do you believe you are describing?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/16/2011 @ 5:22 pm@Rose
viktor (73db5e) — 6/16/2011 @ 5:49 pmWhat was the “correct” outfit for Ms Lee to wear? Seriously. She was dressed appropriately for the occasion, and she handled herself well.
Ms. Lee could be sued. Anyone could be sued. The legal claim that Aaron hypothesizes, though, is based on an almost dead tort that should be dead everywhere, and for very good reasons. The odds that Weiner’s wife would bring the lawsuit are already vanishingly small because no one in her right mind would add to her existing embarrassment. And even if she had some psychotic need to further embarrass herself, Weiner’s wife would have to prove that Ms. Lee was a “proximate cause” of the alienation of affection. Ex-Congressman Weiner, in the meantime, continues to publicly profess not that he’s alienated from, but that he adores, his wife. Finally, you think it’s easy to collect from a porn star? It’s not like suing a bank; Ms. Lee’s assets walk out with her every time she leaves a room.
So I can’t take this seriously.
Beldar (3895f0) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:44 pmShe looks a little like Marsha from the Brady Bunch…
vor2 (0d0c1a) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:51 pmI didn’t complete my thought about proximate cause. Here’s a typical tort-case proximate cause instruction:
Weiner’s wife couldn’t prove that without Ms. Lee’s participation, her husband’s affections would have remained with her because there were too many competing cyber-flirtations that could and likely would have caused the same problem.
Beldar (3895f0) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:52 pmGinger Lee you have stolened my husband. I’m a sue you but good.
oh yeah? Are you gonna sue these too?
bow chika bow bow
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/16/2011 @ 6:54 pmstari
all i did was hit google and there it was. you don’t really have to search much.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:03 pmIt should be physically impossible to not laugh at happyfeet’s comments.
JD (29e1cd) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:07 pmGinger Lee and Tony may still have a future together-since Larry Flynt wants to hire Wiener. Someday we might see the whole package show up with Ms. Lee on the big screen.
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:20 pmOne door closes and another opens up – a new career path for Weiner
bmertz (d77c52) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:21 pmComment by happyfeet — 6/16/2011 @ 6:54 pm
I’m sure they’d just meet quietly to discuss the case… maybe order a pizza…
malclave (4f3ec1) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:24 pmYour theory fails because the lady’s lawyer Gloria Allred cannot spell the tort “alienation of affections,” let alone understand it’s application to her client’s conduct.
Brian (68dcfc) — 6/16/2011 @ 7:24 pmWhat a stupid point. Just an attempt to insult people for bothering to google Ginger Lee.
Follow my link. It goes to imdb, not pornvideos.org. It’s text.
Get a life, btw. Jackass.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:33 pmWhile Aaron’s theory, which I never thought much about at the time, occurred to me even before his post … I have to say that all of Beldar’s points are on point and very strong.
I think Aaron is positing a very, very longshot … and Beldar the almost certain reality of the situation. Now that doesn’t mean Ginger Lee doesn’t have another reason to lie, but quaking fear of being sued by the wife of the the guy who was sexting all sorts of other women doesn’t strike me as the most likely. And if she does fear that, she can pretty much stop.
Random (543d30) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:44 pm