Wow, just a few hours after he gets his multimillion dollar settlement he gets sued for money by one of the Rutgers players.

Apparently being called a "Nappy Headed Ho" gets you millions... I'm sure she'll be suing Kanye, R Kelly and P-Diddy next right? Who let all these crickets in here?

Fuck that nappy headed ho!

Maybe if Edwards drops out of the election, he could help this poor, poor player get what she deserves.

Hope they bleed that low life into the grave.

"Don Imus referred to my client as an unchaste woman. That was and is a lie."

Maybe that's the problem here... She's so uptight about a very silly and nothing comment on a low rated radio show because she needs a good deep dicking.

If someone would take this silly cooz and any twat like her from behind for an afternoon or so this country would be a much better place.

I'm sure that this could get ugly for her. She had better hope that Imus doesn't hire a Private Investigator to check into how much pussy that horsefaced ho has been snacking on.
She also better hope he doesn't find any photos of her going to or comming from practice where her head is nappy.
I wonder if they'll check Mrs Ed's CD and DVD collections to see just how offended she is by such language?



Just think, widdle Keithy Olbermann who was so anti-Imus may now be the next tool with an opinion to get sued for voicing it.

perhaps, to use bill clinton logic, this depends on what the word 'ho' means.
if this thing carries through... would the imus attorney be able to bring this woman's private life into the courtroom? would they be able to make the case that if she sleeps around, or is a loose woman, that she is indeed a ho?

101 talking about eating pussy...


This is uncharted territory for you my man...good luck!

I wonder if they'll check Mrs Ed's CD and DVD collections to see just how offended she is by such language?

That would be a great idea to call her albums into question as evidence...

Only problem is she filed this lawsuit in the Bronx... guess what the makeup of that jury is going to be.

He did make it personal.

This is BS. He no more wronged her than every Rap star out there has.

This should be thrown out of court. This is a prime example of what is wrong with our legal system. everyone is looking for the quick buck and doesn't want to earn it.

Just like you.

Well, this has touched a nerve with the Drudge KKK hasn't it.
Imagine that uppity woman of color! Utilizing her legal recourse! How gauling!
Congrats to you all. You have made the ultimate self retort.
You're not racist sexist,reactionary, Klansmen...no...not at all.

Well, this has touched a nerve with the Drudge KKK hasn't it.
Imagine that uppity woman of color! Utilizing her legal recourse! How gauling!
Congrats to you all. You have made the ultimate self retort.
You're not racist sexist,reactionary, Klansmen...no...not at all.


Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2007-08-15 11:02 AM | Reply


Relax retard, it looks as though this lawsuit may not even happen. Apparently the complaintant escaped from the Tupelo Zoo.

Well, this has touched a nerve with the Drudge KKK hasn't it.
Imagine that uppity woman of color! Utilizing her legal recourse! How gauling!
Congrats to you all. You have made the ultimate self retort.
You're not racist sexist,reactionary, Klansmen...no...not at all.


Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2007-08-15 11:02 AM | Reply

RACIST, WOW IMAGINE that us as Americans expressing our 1st amendment rights. She has a right to sue, thats her prerogative, i think its a bunch of crap. if she was truly wronged, why did she wait until after he was awarded 20mil. She is looking for a quick payday. Not to mention, why aren't the other women suing. Were they not all wronged as well or was he targeting her. Think about it before you start your BS rhetoric about the KKK and BS like that.

In addition, Is IMUS not allowed his opinions? He said nothing worse that Rap "ARTISTS" say on their albums. Why is it not ok for him to say it...

HO, SLUT, BITCH, TRAMP, WHORE... all are common on rap albums. What IMUS said may have been in poor taste but RACIST. No sorry, not everything a white says that offends a black or someone else is racist. Oh and by the way, please show me in the US Constitution where it says you have the right to never be offended. Sorry not there. HATE SPEECH laws are only there to stifle free speech.

You can bitch all day long about the KKK or NAZi's, the Black Panthers, CAIR, or Muslims. Just because you do doesn't not make you a racist. However we have become a nation of little bitches that believe we have the right not to be offended. SORRY, SHIT HAPPENS...

You're not racist sexist,reactionary, Klansmen...no...not at all.


Posted by oldwhiskeysour


A person suing another person shortly after he recieves a multimillion dollar settlement has nothing to do with race.

Thanks for at least debating that issue though and not throwing out canned PC thug comments... you add so much to the thread.

Army,

The reason the suit has more merit than one against rap lyrics (though I disagree with this lawsuit) is that he was leveling the comment at a specific group of young women. That makes it a personal insult rather than a cultural one.

In my opinion, both cultural and personal insults are highly negative, however, the fact that Imus' comments can be shown to be directed at such a small group of individuals means that a claim of libel is possible in this case.

"Among other infractions, the suit alleges that Imus violated the players' civil rights."

Can anyone here tell me how her civil rights were violated? Does this mean rap artists have violated her civil rights as well? I ask because there are NO civil rights that say Americans have the right to not be offended. In public schools I got called names all the time - does this mean my civil rights were violated? (and yes, they were usually racially derogative) Danni called me an a%@hole a few weeks ago - does she owe me money for slander? After all, from the article...
"She has a slander per se case -- the word itself was something derogatory. She doesn't even have to prove that she was damaged."
I agree that this case should be thrown out.

This isn't a rape case, so she had better hope that Imus doesn't get all of the dudes that have boned her, and all of the teammates that have licked her crack to testify.
She's opening herself up for a serious maligning. It will make getting called a "nappy headed ho" seem pleasant in comparisan.

I hope Secretariat knows what she's doing.

I see your point REV, however, things are said about others all the time.

Until she filed this lawsuit I didn't even know the names of any of the girls on the Rutgers BBall team. I am a huge sports fan but i cant even tell you every player on the cardinals, or the St. Louis Blues for that matter. No employer gives a crap. They will see her for how she presents herself, not for what Imus said. but EZ money wins out everytime..

What IMUS said may have been in poor taste, it was absolutely not racism. Under the 1st amendment e had every right to say it. Contractually CBS couldn't fire him for apparently.

I just think the timing of the law suit, the civil rights violated, and the fact that she is claiming it has damaged her reputation is a JOKE. This girl and probably her BS lawyer and parents are looking for a quick payday, nothing else.

I would be curious to know what her degree of study is in. What her GPA is. etc... Basket weaving and a 2.1GPA would not help her case. Pre-med with a 4.0 gpa might... Just a thought...

Whatever sympathy these ladies had is quickly evaporating as this becomes more of an attempt to suck money out of Imus instead of just a desire to be treated as dignified human beings.
I thought the attacks on Imus took on a ridiculous tone and Al Sharpton is still an asshole.

Ok who hijacked Danni's account, 101 is that you, Sniper?...

:-) JK Danni...

Danni's just saying that because she doesn't want to be called to testify...

Who had any idea this was going to be such a funny thread?

If You put this young lady in a lineup 99 out of 100 people would not know who she was, and the one who would, would have to be one of her Parents!!!!!
What reputation????This is about the MONEY!!!!!!! Once again a misuse of the legal system, her lawyers comments in the news is really sickening, such a ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONe has got to know why LAWYERS are held in such comptemt in this Country!!!!!!

I would be curious to know what her degree of study is in. What her GPA is. etc... Basket weaving and a 2.1GPA would not help her case. Pre-med with a 4.0 gpa might... Just a thought...




Posted by armyof1 at 2007-08-15 11:46 AM | Reply |

And just how would that prove libel?

Actually I do find it funny that the same people that defended a mining executive suing the DNC is now decrying this lawsuit as an assault on the legal system.

Too damn funny.

Keep on keeping on.

Ok jimmy since you obviously can't rationalize the data i'll use small words for so you can understand the information

Her GPA is an indicator to her intent here. If she is carrying a 4.0 GPA in a pre-med program then yes some worthless bastards out there might remember the NAPPY HEADED HO comment and look at her with bias thus establishing a potential libel case. If she carries a 2.1 in basket weaving it helps to prove the intent that she is looking for a payday since she obviously has no future outside of sports.

As far as the legal cases. She has a right to sue, I think it is a joke on the legal system for her to sue. I could see the school suing since it effected the Rutgers Womens Basketball team. But as an individual she is simply looking for a payday IMHO.

The mining exec has blatant proof that the democratic party of WVA lied in an add where the ad's intent was to solely inform voters of the type of man the exec is. By lying to the public, blatantly lying to the public, they are responsible for what they allowed to go on the air. Their intent was for political gain.

Was that simple enough for you to comprehend?

Dat nappy headed ho be out of her cotton pickin' mind.I betcha her lawyer is a New York jewwwww

Sincerely,
A. Lincoln

Armyofnone,

Welll duuuuh geee thanks for splaining it so nicely.

Now run along and play good hypocrite.

I hope her attorney doesn't enter as evidence that his client is 'chaste'. Remember in the days before DNA when a man named in a paternity suit would find two dozen men to claim that they slept with the mother also?

I can see private investigators looking for every person who ever dated her, testifying as to how far they went with her. There is no rape shield law in civil suits for defamation. It will probably be settled, but this will degenerate into a worse circus than it is already.

Satire is satire. President Clinton said he laughed at the jokes Leno made about him on the Tonight Show. The women needs to forget it and move on. Was it cruel? Yes. Is it "American"? Imus, Stern, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. -- they get paid to make obnoxious comments and have high ratings because a huge block of Americans are vicious, bigoted, course, and have a crude sense of humor. They eat this garbage up. The thing is, the first amendment allows it (for now, that 'god damn piece of paper' is under such seige, it may not last much longer).

CPRAY,

Actually I can see Imus' lawyer making the arguement that her being on a national college basketball team would put her in the "public eye" and thus open her up to commentary by anyone without the fear of defamation lawsuit.

If the same standard was applied to public figures that are allotted to private citizens blowhards like O'Lielly, Slanthead Hannity and Limblow would be out of a job.

No hypocrite here, the two are completely different situations. One was on a controversial talk show the other was intentionally put out to harm the other.

Please tell me you can see the difference...

Although I doubt you can since the only ting you do on this site is normally scream your liberal Rhetoric, with absolutly no facts, figures or rational understanding to back up your loony ideas...

But hey, thats why it makes it so easy for us conservatives to win arguments with morons like you...

If she wins, what kind of precident does this set in regards to all radio hosts who talk about public figures? How many hosts have specifically insulted politicians or sports stars on the public airwaves? Wouldn't someone calling Michael Vick a scumbag (I think I've heard that about 500 times now) leave them open to a lawsuit as well?

Seems like this is could open the door to silencing political dissent on the radio.

Please tell me you can see the difference...

Posted by armyof1 at 2007-08-15 12:39 PM | Reply

Yes Corporate Executive suing = good.

Black college student suing = bad.

I see it perfectly well.

Interesting point, Jimmy. A professional athlete IS a public figure, with a much higher standard to be slandered and libeled. But what about an "amateur" college athlete? Any attorneys experienced in this area have input?

I.e. suppose a sportswriter's column says: "XXX doesn't deserve the Heisman because he has butterfingers and runs like he is on meth." I doubt a lawsuit would result (or be successful if it was initiated).

Show me the MONEY!

signed,

Nappy headed Ho.

She won't get anything (other than some media attention) but her lawyers might.

I hope Secretariat knows what she's doing.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-08-15 11:43 AM


For a cracker you're one funny mo f---r

She won't get anything (other than some media attention) but her lawyers might.

Posted by Incubus_Con


Imus turned into a stank puss when this thing went down... he should have fought for his job... he may still be a little bitch about this and settle. I hope he fights... drag up every guy/gal she's ever touched, smear her character in court and make sure it gets public.

I hate people that sue just to get rich like they won some sort of lottery.

If I were her, with all the names that have been thrown in my direction, I would already be a gazillionaire.

She needs to grow some skin.

But what about an "amateur" college athlete? Any attorneys experienced in this area have input?

Posted by CPRAY at 2007-08-15 12:55 PM | Reply

I don't think getting paid to be an athlete is a determining factor in being a public figure.

Just look at one of our favorite public figures.... Cindy Sheehan. Is she an "amateur"? I cannot imagine her being paid a lot for what she is doing, but even if she still were doing it for free she would still be a public figure and open to comments from anyone.

Hell from what the tighty rightys have said about her right here on the this thread she could be a billionaire easy.

When it comes down to it all, I think this woman is just looking for a payday, just like the mining executive that is suing the DNC for using his own words against him. When you place yourself in the public spotlight whether it be through sports or press conferences you have to expect that negative things will be said about you.

Hell, suing Imus for $20 million is a hell of a better payday than playing in the WNBA. But then the system will decide whether her case has merit and proceed accordingly. She has the burden of proof to prove her case. I just don't think that as a public figure she has one.

I hate people that sue just to get rich like they won some sort of lottery.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-08-15 01:04 PM |

Because you haven't won it yourself yet?

101 talking about eating pussy...
Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2007-08-15 09:47 AM

The Chairpoodle is more familiar with the tossing of the salad, IraqiBukkake.

....his "wife" RobTheCornholer likes it as foreplay.

Because you haven't won it yourself yet?

Posted by JimmyWallback


precisely

Well Rob,

Mega Millions is up to 140 mill. You got as much chance as this woman does in winning her lawsuit.

Please tell me you can see the difference...

Posted by armyof1 at 2007-08-15 12:39 PM | Reply

Yes Corporate Executive suing = good.

Black college student suing = bad.

I see it perfectly well.

Posted by JimmyWallback at 2007-08-15 12:55 PM


Beat me to it. Maybe if the Corporate Executive/Mine Owner was black...

I love ya all---well except for maybe just a few of you. This thread is fun because I woke Danni up the other day by pointing out to her the evilness of her hating, HOPING people dead (and painful deaths to boot). Note, her miraculous turnaround. So, Danni, just continue to stay in line now....you'll feel better about yourself and the world around you. "Thank you ride_on" says Danni.

Darthcheney,

I don't think it has as much to do with the color of the skin but rather the fact that he is a Corporate Executive.

Because we all know that anyone connected with Corporate America can do no wrong in Bushworld.

She has the burden of proof to prove her case.

In a libel case that burden is pretty high. She must not only prove that Imus lied, but that Imus KNEW it was a lie when he spoke.

It will be pretty hard to PROVE what someone knows and what they don't.

She is gonna need evidence showing Imus knew for certain that she was not a nappy headed ho and said it anyway.

Either this girl has gotten the worst legal advice since Richard Nixon, or she is just trying to keep Imus from getting his job back. Unless she really is just a nappy headed ho, I don't think she believes she will get rich off this. It is just a ploy to end Imus' career.

Didn't Imus refer to the Entire Team as NHH's ?? How was she singled out by this joke?

No one knew really her name until this lawsuit.

And if someone is making a joke--arguably a poor joke by some people, but a joke--not a statement of fact--how does she get past the first motion to dismiss?

The judge is going to throw this out. Although the Bronx is very plaintiff friendly.

If Hustler can parrody Falwell (someone correct me if this is not correct) and it's free speech and protected, then this lawsuit would have to be ruled the same way.

Murphy

I think it is more of a ploy to extend her fifteen minutes of fame, to garner more sympathy for her.

Wouldn't the fact that the "team" accepted the apology also factor in? I know the apology in and of itself is basically an admission of guilt, but they did accept it.

I-mouth is get sued by one of the Rutgers gals?

Damn but America is one overly litiginous society.

When I(putmyfootinmy)Mouth made these comments originally Spud sed it was uncalled for and dumb.

Spud sez pretty much the same thing about this suit.

The case doesn't stand much of a chance but Imus still might just toss some money at the gal here, out of court, to make this nuisance go away.

This has nothing to do with making a point and everything to do with making money.

Be Well.

Fuck that nappy-headed ho!

I hope she gets jack-shit!

Maybe if Edwards drops out of the election, he could help this poor, poor player get what she deserves.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-08-15 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

WOW....politicizing this?

OK, here goes.

Maybe Dumbya could resign from the WH and be this nappy-headed ho's cheerleader.

Spud is Bob Dole....yeah that's it. Spud runs for President. Spud likes to shake hands........etc.

Was that simple enough for you to comprehend?

Posted by armyof1 at 2007-08-15 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Simplifying something still doesn't make it true.

He's right, it has nothing to do with libel or slander.

Keep reaching though.

I have to agree with most of these posts. If these ladies can't take Imus calling them a name they are just babies...... sniffle waaaaa..... mommy he called me a bad name! These Scarlet Knight homegirls need to big up themselves and forget what some crusty old white dude called them. Everyone else will forget this. The WNBA is not going to hold this against them. Nobody cares. What a waste of the judicial system, like the judge suing the cleaner for his pants. Get over it!

Lawsuit? They have to show intent that Imus was really trying to humiliate them and then what real damages were incurred.

First off he only talked about them for less than a minute. Secondly his listening audience was really small and most weren't paying attention.

I thought his firing was way overboard to begin with.

I think the guy who recorded it and publicized it on youtube for the whole world to listen in on is more liable the Imus.

This suit will go nowhere for three reasons:

1. Free Speech.
2. Fair Use.
3. No Damages.

Next?

ROC,

Free Speech is in regards to government control, with exceptions though. You still have civil responsibility for what you say.

As probably the most devout free speech civil libertarian to post here, I still must point out that Imus spoke slander per se and even if he proved the truth of his charges, that would be no defense. Imus decided to use actionable hate speech to prove his own on-air brilliance. He's not about to be Guantanamoed for that, just assessed a few bucks to soothe the pain. Nappy headed hos everywhere should unite. herm

"Danni called me an a%@hole a few weeks ago - does she owe me money for slander?

Posted by bartimus at 2007-08-15 11:35 AM"

No. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation charge.

Herm - you misspoke (typed?). Truth is an absolute defense to defamation (slander or libel), even if it is per se. What is assumed with per se slander is damages (i.e., she wouldn't have to prove specific damages). If Imus could show his remarks were the truth, that would provide him an absolute defense.

RightO - I thought you were an attorney? Either way, your analysis is flawed. You do not have a free speech right to defame someone. (I doubt this basketball player will not be considered a public figure, by the way.) And "no damages" does not kill a defamation per se case. Fair use is not applicable to this case either. I think what will kill this case is very unlikely that a jury would give more than nominal damages (say $1) to this woman.

Lawyer on Lawyer action.

Man, this is just like the Paper Chase. I wonder if ROCenter will get "shrouded"?

Furio-

I have tried a number of these cases, and am very well versed in this. When faced with this type of claim, the First Amendment analysis is at the core of any defamation analysis, namely, whether the utterance is protected in some way under Freedom of Speed. The next step, as it relates to a public figure (Imus) is whether or not the statement falls under the Fair Use exception: Most types of lawsuits against shock jocks get thrown out under Fair Use.

Finally, what are her damages? Robert Baker, who is quoted (or misquoted) on defamation per se, saying that "she doesn't even need to prove she was damaged", gives the mis-impression that she doesn't need to prove damages...what a per se violation says is that the nature of the statement is damaging as a matter of law, but she still needs to prove that she was actually damaged in some amount, which she can't do.

I defensed a defamation per-se claim against a public figure by successfully arguing to the jury that while my client had, indeed, said that the plaintiff had stolen money from his production company, she had not proven monetary damages. The award...One Dollar. She was seeking Two Million Dollars, so that counted as a victory.

Speed=Speech.

Monte-

See my 6:26.

I hope they win.

Then all the Police Departments can sue the crap of all the rappers.

In the case that I referenced, the per-se violation was the accusation of theft in a business context, which, if false, was defamation per-se. Under more traditional defamation cases, you need not only prove that the statement was false, but damaging and then the amount of damages. Per-se takes out the requirement that the statement was damaging in some manner, but still leaves the amount of damages to be proven.

ROC,

I agree with what you say of course.

Questions. What are the general costs to defend against a suit like this where there are obviously no damages and easy to prove? (curiosity, not looking to find out about Your billables) And are you able to get remuneration from the plaintiff?

RightO - if I publicize, untruthfully, that you have some nasty venereal disease, you have a defamation case against me (and a right to have a jury award damages) even if you cannot prove actual damages. So even if you are married, are not a porn star, didn't go to the doctor to get checked out, etc. (i.e., it had no impact on your wallet, etc.), you have a legal case that you can bring before a jury. Agree?

If you take it to trial it can cost several hundred thousand dollars, and no, you cannot usually get your fees paid by the plaintiff if they lose. In Federal Court there is something called Rule 11 (F.R.C.P. 11), which allows a party to recover attorneys fees for truly frivolous lawsuits, but the bar is set very high. California has the same thing in C.C.P. 128.7 but is also tough to collect under.

Usually the defendant is SOL, which is why these suits settle for nuisance value.

Monte-

I could bring it in front of a jury, but to prevail I have to prove that I was actually monetarily damaged in some way, since damages are an element of any civil cause of action. As a defense lawyer, if you can't show me, in pre-trial discovery, that you can prove your damages, then I will try to kick out your case on a Motion for Summary Judgment or through a Motion in Limine which would preclude you putting on evidence of your damages at trial. If I succeed at the latter, then at best you get nominal ($1) damages and in most jurisdictions have a tough road towards getting any significant punitive damages which won't be overturned on appeal.

Monte-

An accusation that I have VD could impact me in other ways that are not directly out of pocket, i.e. loss of my job, loss of consortium (a fancy way of saying that my wife won't sleep with me for reasons other then the fact that she is married to me), etc. But I still have to prove the amount of those damages---if I can't, then I don't get anything.

RightO - sorry, bud, but you are Wrong-O. Damages in a per se case are "presumed." Sure, the jury is free to award little or nothing, but you do not have to put on any proof whatsoever to get to the jury, and the jury can award damages even if you provide no proof of actual damages. But thanks for playing.

Don Imus is facing his first lawsuit from a player on the Rutgers Women's Basketball team for derogatory comments that cost him his job as a radio host in April, ABC News has learned.

Did I miss something? I thought that Imus was the "injured" party who had his reputation destroyed by his own comments. The Players, came out smelling like a rose -- in fact, their reputations were enhanced by showing the poise and class they did i dealing with Imus' nasty comment about them. So how can one of the women now claim their reputatins were destroyed.

if anything, filing a transparent lawsuit to just cash-in on the controversy will serve to show this young woman as just a money grubbing opportunist -- it is the lawsuit that will destroy her reputation, not what Imus said.

Yes--damages are hard to prove on these types of cases.

But she is claiming her reputation is harmed by the statement.An MSJ should throw this out on the first court date--after her deposition to ask her what damages she suffered.

The only theory damage I can think of is if the pro team she tries out for turned her away and said it was because she was a nappy hh...

Then she could show the loss of a contract--or if they offered her less than the next gal for the same job on the Team.

Something like diminished earnings.

But as it stands now--what are the damages? She graduated --right? No loss there.

Murphy

Monte-

You are confusing damages being "presumed" with damages to be "awarded." You do get past the hurdle of having to prove that you were damaged (which gets you to the jury), but you still have to show what those damages actually are. Two completely different things, as the plaintiff (and her very young lawyer) in the case that I referred to learned to their eternal dismay: If you don't have evidence to support the damages award, you then get, as in my case, $1.

But thanks for playing.

That's what I said, RightO. But thanks for agreeing. (I have to go now, but if the jury said that me saying that you were a leper was worth $10,000, then that award would stand, even if you didn't put on any evidence of the quantum of your damages. Cheers.)

if the jury said that me saying that you were a leper was worth $10,000, then that award would stand, even if you didn't put on any evidence of the quantum of your damages.

Not in the State of California it wouldn't, or in most Federal Courts. For example, in Beatty v. Warren, 130 Cal. App. 573 (1933), the defendant appealed from a judgment of $500 in damages in favor of the plaintiff based on the jury's finding of defendant's slander per se. The Court stated that the jury did not have to automatically award damages in favor of the plaintiff based on slander per se. Instead, Beatty held that while a jury has wide discretion to award damages, the jury's verdict on damages must be supported by the facts. Where there is no factual support for the amount of damages awarded, the damage award will not stand.

Under your hypothetical, I still have to provide evidence to support that I was damaged in the amount of 10K, otherwise the Court of Appeals would throw the damage award out the window.

I am going to sue all you republithugs on this blog for turning my stomach. Me like money!!

Spread the goods. Imus got money and he should share it. Offer $50K to each players and wrap up the settlement.

Didnt she win the Derby a few years back?Doesnt that make her a public figure?You attorneys can answer that.

I'm with Rob's first comment. Ridiculous. Is she going to sue all her former boyfriends next? Let her get on the witness stand and swear she never used the word 'ho' to describe someone not a prostitute. But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

It seems Imus was lying when he said these girls(at least one of them anyway) were "tough"

Imus said something dumb and apologized. Game over.

Can I just loathe everyone involved in debacle and move on to the next story?

When the attorneys for Imus grill this ditzy idiot in a deposition, and they will,she will soon learn that when you try this kind of stuff, you best have it all together or else you are going to be had.

Under deposition her previous sexual exploits will be called into question. (She is upset because of the "Ho" statement) and now must prove she is not.

If I were her boyfriend I would be be nervous.