Homegrown by Jeffrey Toobin, opens by comparing the January 6 attack on the Capitol to McVeigh’s attack on Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City.
(Notice the small “No Trespassing” sign on the book’s cover. Perfect.)
As recounted in Homegrown, McVeigh was calm when his lawyer visited him in prison. He was certain that the attack “was more than just permissible. It was mandatory, his duty as a patriotic American.” When his lawyer asked for more explanation, McVeigh told him to read the Declaration of Independence, which he recited from memory:
“. . . whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.” (Homegrown, p. 3)
McVeigh was also inspired by Patrick Henry’s famous speech which began with “Give me liberty or give me death” and ends with: “If we wish to be free–if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending. . . we must fight, sir, we must fight!”
McVeigh bombed the Murrah building as part of that fight. Specifically, he said he carried out the attack in direct response to the “abuses and usurpations” of the federal government, especially those at Ruby Ridge and Waco. McVeigh selected April 19 for his attack because it was the second anniversary of the Waco raid and the anniversary of “the shot heard around the world” in 1775 kicking off the American Revolution.
Similarly, “1776 Returns” was the codeword for the planned takeover of government buildings on January 6, 2021.
No surprise, McVeigh was also a member of the National Rifle Association, a regular reader of the NRA magazine The American Hunter, and a fan of Rush Limbaugh. He owned a T-shirt that he designed himself and had printed at a gun show: On the front was a drawing of Lincoln with the words “Sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants,” which was what John Wilkes Booth yelled after he shot Lincoln). On the back was the drawing of a tree and this quotation from Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Yes, Jefferson really did say that. Jefferson (who in my view is way too revered), also said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Jefferson’s party, the Democratic-Republicans, became the party of the Confederacy.
In other words, there is a direct line from Thomas Jefferson to the January 6 attack:
Thomas Jefferson→Confederates→Ruby Ridge →Waco, Texas→Timothy McVeigh →Donald Trump and MAGA→ the January 6 attack.
Trump has promised to pardon “a large portion” of the insurrectionists and remains the clear favorite to win the GOP nomination and a recent poll shows that almost 40% of voters would vote for Trump for president in 2024. That’s a lot of support for a guy who led an insurrection against Congress, has been indicted on multiple charges of fraud, and was found liable for sexual assault.
On Friday, a DC Police lieutenant was charged with obstruction and lying to the FBI about his contacts with Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio. Apparently he alerted Tarrio about his first arrest, deleted his electronic correspondence with Tarrio and, among other things, told Tarrio, “Of course, I can’t say it officially, but personally I support you all and don’t want to see your group’s name or reputation dragged through the mud.”
“What the heck does any of this have to do with Rudy Guiliani and sexual abuse?” you ask.
Patience, patience. I’m getting there.
McVeigh also expressed a reactionary desire to go back to the America of 150 years ago:
“I want a country that operates like it did 150 years ago–no income taxes, no property taxes, no oppressive police, free land in the west.” (Homegrown, p 6.)
McVeigh, like Trump, embraced a reactionary vision, a desire to go back to the way things were. McVeigh wanted to make America “great” again, where “great” meant very few rules and regulations limiting the ability of men to grab what they wanted and keep what they grabbed.
McVeigh called himself a “white separatist,” he abhorred immigration, both legal and illegal and “he wanted women to return to their traditional role in the home”. . . (Homegrown, P.6, emphasis added.)
If you want to take the country back 150 years, it’s a package deal: White supremacy, hatred of the federal government, a fetish for guns, and women under the dominion of men.
Until the modern women’s movement, women were excluded from most professions. As late as the 1960s, women were not allowed to take out loans or apply for credit cards without a male co-signer. Without access to credit in their own name, women could not build their credit score to qualify for a mortgage. It wasn’t until 1974 that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) enabled women to get their own credit cards in their own name.
Susan B. Anthony explained the situation of women this way: “Women’s subsistence is in the hands of men, and most arbitrarily and unjustly does he exercise his consequent power.”
Earlier this week, this headline popped up in my RSS feed:
Today, women outnumber men in the U.S. college-educated labor force and can buy their own houses. To put the matter bluntly, women are no longer dependent on men, which means men can no longer arbitrarily exercise their power over women, which, (I maintain) explains much of the anger and frustration you see here:
Two weeks ago, I wrote a post called “Rape is a Means of Asserting Patriarchal Power” and last week I had a lot of fun gloating over Trump’s loss in the E. Jean Carroll case. This post will build on those two posts, so if you missed them, you might want to get caught up.
Now, we come to Rudy Giuliani and his accuser, Noelle Dunphy.
Noelle Dunphy Sues Rudy Giuliani for Sexual Abuse, Sexual Harassment on the Job, and Refusal to Pay Her Wages
Dunphy is demanding $3.1 million in damages. You can see the complaint here. In her words, she “seeks a measure of justice from a man who thought his power and connections rendered him untouchable.”
Dunphy’s Allegations as Recounted in her Complaint
Giuliani first tried to hire Dumphy in 2016, and then he “aggressively” tried to hire her again in 2019 “while he was at the top of his influence in the White House.” She has a tape recording of him saying that he “wanted” her from the day he interviewed her.
(In other words, “hire her” is a euphemism for what he was trying to do.)
Ms. Dunphy is a Columbia University graduate and “skilled businesswoman with 22 years of experience in business development, associate producing, and communications,” who “owned her own consulting firm, Strategic Consulting, since 2001.”
To persuade her to take a job entitled Director of Business Development, Guiliani offered an annual salary of $1 million. This was in the same general range that Giuliani and the Giuliani Companies paid to other employees when accounting for expenses and other benefits. One of her responsibilities would be generating speaking engagements which in the past brought in $10 million annually. During the interview, she made suggestions such as a podcast. (In the interview, he didn’t know what a podcast was, so she had to explain it to him.) He later adopted some of her suggestions (he now has a podcast).
He suggested that one day she write a book about him and Trump and gave permission for her to record him at any time. He never revoked that permission.
To sweeten the deal, he offered legal assistance with her ongoing claims against her former partner. Because Giuliani had served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, “his offer of pro bono legal representation was an important inducement of seemingly incalculable value due to his experience and recognition in New York legal circles.”
But Giuliani’s offer came with a catch: he was in the midst of an acrimonious divorce, and he told Ms. Dunphy that her pay would have to be deferred and her employment kept “secret” until the divorce proceedings finished. Giuliani promised his divorce would be resolved “any day now.”
She “reluctantly” agreed to defer her pay and not to publicize her employment because she viewed the job, the salary, and the free legal representation as being worth the wait.
Of course, “the generous offers were a sham motivated by his secret desire to pursue a sexual relationship with Ms. Dunphy.”
Soon after she started working, she thought his behavior was “strange,” but she had no idea what was to come. She was confused and “shaken” the first time he tried to kiss her. She disentangled herself and went into her home. That night he called her five times.
He abused his role as her attorney by offering her money to drop some of her claims. He also insisted that he needed salacious details about her sexual history with the partner against whom she had ongoing claims. She alleges that he didn’t need this information for her case, he was aroused by the descriptions of the abuse she suffered, and that he used this information to force her to repeat the cycle of abuse she had suffered.
On January 25, 2019, Giuliani paid to fly Ms. Dunphy to New York on a semi-private chartered plane. He then insisted that she stay in a guest suite in his Upper East Side apartment. She was surprised, but he assured her that employees often slept in his guest suite, which included a private bedroom and private bathroom. She wasn’t comfortable and tried to secure other arrangements, but he insisted that she stay in his apartment. “Since Giuliani was her boss and attorney, she felt pressured to do as he asked.”
He urged her to drink wine. Initially, she tried to decline, but he pushed, and she accepted “to be polite.” She was unaccustomed to alcohol. He then forced her to have oral sex with him.
The next day, he expected her to continue with her employment duties. He quickly made clear that “satisfying his sexual demands—which came virtually anytime, anywhere—was an absolute requirement of her employment.”
I won’t go into the things he demanded that she do other than to say that she paints a picture of a thoroughly disgusting human being. Fortunately, she included this detail so at least I could snicker at Giuliani:
“Giuliani also took Viagra constantly.”
During the course of her employment, she had access to many of his emails:
She saw highly confidential material but was never asked to sign any sort of nondisclosure agreement. In other words, the fact that Giuliani needs lots of Viagra may not be the only secret she is willing to spill.
This is from the complaint:
Meanwhile, “Giuliani kept refusing to pay” the salary she was owed and “strung her along with small cash payments.” Small meaning about $5,000. (Aside: Trump lured Stormy Daniels into his hotel room by promising her a role on The Apprentice but he never honored his promise. I’m seeing a pattern here.)
Meanwhile, by February (a month after the interview) “Giuliani repeatedly demanded assurances from Ms. Dunphy of her loyalty and began isolating her from others. He forbade her from seeing or talking on the phone with anyone without his approval.” He demanded that she be available for work or sex around the clock. When he demanded sex, he “would not take no for an answer.”
By March, he was constantly drunk and was becoming more physically and verbally abusive. The details are stomach-churning. He still hadn’t paid her any salary, so he began paying her rent.
Also, in June and July:
The story Dunphy tells is of a woman who is smart and capable, but vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Giuliani described here is such a stupid drunk that he doesn’t know how to use Google or figure out how to do a podcast without help. He is, however, a skilled liar, cheater, sexual predator, and bully.
Fast forward to December. Giuliani tells her, “You’re so easy to take advantage of.” He added that although he was “crazy” to do so, he would “always take care of” her. He also told her he was in love with other women as well.
On January 7, 2021, the day after the January 6 insurrection in Washington, D.C., she told him, “I feel scared of you, and I don’t want you trying to hurt me… Now the country has just gone through chaos, and I pray I never see something like that again.”
She claims that on January 31, 2021, he fired her in retaliation because she had “found the courage to express her fear of him.”
Bottom line: She claims she was promised a large salary and legal representation. She worked for two years, was forced to have sex to keep her job, and wasn’t even paid minimum wage.
Dunphy Asserts the following Causes of Action against Giuliani:
- Crime of Violence Motivated by Gender – New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, N.Y.C. Admin Code § 10-1101 et s
- Battery
- Assault
- Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
- Retaliatory discharge
- Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination
- Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Under the New York City Human Rights Law
- Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination Against a Contractor or Consultant
- Aiding and Abetting Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
- Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination Relating to Freelancers and Contractors
- Hostile Work Environment Animated by Discrimination
- Retaliatory Discharge
- Breach of Contract
- Violation of the Freelance Isn’t Free Act
- Violation of New York Labor Law – Minimum Wage
- Violation of New York Labor Law for Failure to Provide Wage Statements
- Violation of New York Labor Law – Overtime Claim
- Unjust Enrichment
- Quantum Meruit
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
150 years ago, when—according to MAGA thinking, America was “great,”—Dunphy wouldn’t have been able to bring these claims against Giuliani
Labor and Employment Laws
The easiest violations for Dunphy to prove will be violations of labor laws, particularly the failure to provide statements, failure to pay minimum wage, and failure to pay overtime because there will be documentary evidence (or lack of documentary evidence, which itself is a violation of record-keeping laws.)
100 years ago, none of these laws existed so Dunphy would have had no recourse.
To take an example of how the courts looked at situations in which a person with power preyed on a person without power, in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) the United States Supreme Court held that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, which they believed contained a right of “freedom to contract.” The court reasoned that an employer and employee had a constitutional right to contract in whatever manner they pleased. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, the minimum wage law unjustly interfered with the freedom to contract.
Breach of Contract
After 1848, women were deemed competent to enter contracts in New York. The problem was that Dunphy’s contract with Guiliani was verbal, and while verbal contracts are enforceable, women were not deemed competent to testify in court. It is unlikely a nineteenth-century woman would have had any hope of proving the existence of a verbal contract.
So, under the law as it stood back then, Giuliani would have been able to skate on that one as well.
Prior to 1964, a woman would have had no hope of bringing a cause of action for sexual harassment
Sexual harassment was made illegal in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The first sexual harassment case was brought in 1974. (Barnes v. Train)
Prior to the enactment of these laws, “Women knew that if they were the object of a sexual assault, the law would not protect them.” (Sexual assault is the forcible touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire. In other words, rape without penetration.)
Prior to modern rape shield laws, Giuliani could have used the “she was unchaste” defense to sexual assault.
This expands on what I wrote in my recent piece “Rape is a means of asserting patriarchal power.” In fact, the story Dunphy tells is an illustration of precisely how rape is a means of asserting patriarchal power.
While I could not find a date for some of the photographs of Dunphy and Giuliani together, presumably at least one of the many photographs like this was taken during the two years of her employment:
Until very recently (basically yesterday in terms of the history of rape laws) Dunphy’s sexual history, her marital status, absence of evidence that she screamed our sought help, and in fact, that she remained in the job would have made it virtually impossible for her to prove that she didn’t consent.
Giuliani responds as if it’s 1950
Via Law and Crime, This statement was originally published on Gateway (a right-wing propaganda site):
“She was absolutely never employed. She illegally taped me and illegally went in my email.”
The statement has been “airbrushed” and now reads:
“Banned from luxury hotels” implies that she was a sex worker. Here is the statement Giuliani’s team gave to Rolling Stone:
(Yes. the ex-partner accused her of these things. He was also found liable and ordered to pay damages of $10,000.)
Also, if you’re wondering, yes, Guiliani probably defamed her with those comments.
The idea behind Guiliani’s statements is that an unchaste woman, particularly a sex worker, can’t be sexually assaulted because the goods are already damaged. Even fairly recently, the woman’s acceptance of money was construed as consent to engage in any sexually-oriented acts that followed.
Smearing Dunphy as a sex worker and bringing in her sexual history would have been an effective defense for Guiliani as recently as fifty years ago.
Even today, a great many people may believe everything Noelle alleges and still think that she got what she deserved. They will ask: “Why did she take the job with a known slimeball? Why didn’t she leave? Why didn’t she scream or try to get help?”
Even people who consider themselves progressive and sympathetic may have a hard time understanding why she felt trapped and (as one reader on Twitter said) why it would have been hard for her to find another job with Rudy Giuliani “bleating that she’s a sex worker.”
For a glimpse into the right-wing mentality, Rush Limbaugh said the following things about women, sex, and rape:
- When a woman accused Duke University lacrosse players of rape, he derided her as a “ho.”
- When a Georgetown University law student supported expanded contraceptive coverage, he dismissed her as a “slut.”
As I talked about here, not long ago, men were free to grab women–as long as they grabbed women lower than them on the hierarchy. Because the 19th-century social hierarchy put white men on top and Black women on the bottom, there was always a woman lower on the hierarchy for a man to grab. Consider the fact that the rape of an enslaved woman was not a crime, and if she resisted, the man could legally beat her.
The idea that wealthy men and powerful men should have free access to women whom society considered beneath them on the social hierarchy dates far back in human history. For people like Guiliani, Trump, the Insurrectionists, and the 40% of voters who would vote for Trump again, 🎶 those were the days 🎶.
Meanwhile, also this week . . .
Nancy Abudu was confirmed as the first Black woman on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Abudu has “worked on a range of matters, including defending voting rights, protecting religious freedom, and advancing criminal justice reform.”
Progressives push forward. Reactionaries push back. It’s a constant push and pull. The liberal vision is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society in which all people have an equal voice. The reactionary vision is to return to the time when men had dominion over women and political power and wealth were concentrated in the hands of a few white men, who grabbed whatever they wanted.
The reactionaries have always been with us and they show no signs of giving up. The struggle therefore will not end unless we give up, in which case they will win. Because for so much of our history, we lived in the kind of world they long for, it may feel to them like the default.
When we do manage to inch forward, as with the appointment of Nancy Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit, it’s important to stop and celebrate the moment.