A self-described Republican caller transformed a live C-SPAN discussion into a blunt argument about who deserves political power and whose accusations deserve to be believed.
Susan, a caller from Worcester, Massachusetts, told host Taylor Popielarz on Thursday, July 9, that women should not serve in the House or Senate. She called female lawmakers “emotional bimbos,” described them as “too dumb” for office and criticized women in both major parties during the caller’s remarks during the broadcast .
The exchange became more serious when Susan dismissed E. Jean Carroll’s successful civil case against President Donald Trump and questioned a separate sexual assault allegation against Graham Platner, who has since withdrawn from Maine’s U.S. Senate race.
The host makes the caller clarify.
Susan did not limit her frustration to a particular bill, vote, or lawmaker. She argued that every woman should be removed from Congress because women allegedly lack the intelligence and emotional control required to govern.
Popielarz stopped her and asked whether she truly believed women should not hold elected office. The question offered her an opportunity to narrow her position or explain that she meant only certain politicians. Instead, she doubled down.
Susan criticized Kamala Harris before turning her anger toward Republican women. Her argument was therefore not a familiar partisan attack against Democrats. It was a demand to exclude women from federal office solely because of their sex.
That position would overturn decisions made by millions of voters. When the 119th Congress convened in January 2025, women formed 28 percent of its voting membership, with 150 women serving across the House and Senate.
Those lawmakers represent different regions, parties, and political movements. They routinely disagree on taxes, immigration, abortion, health care, national security, and government spending.
Carroll’s remarks conflict with the verdict.
Susan then dismissed Carroll’s accusation against Trump as little more than an unsupported dispute between two people. She urged Trump not to pay the writer and claimed, without presenting evidence, that billionaire George Soros had arranged the case. The federal court record presents a far more developed history.
In May 2023, a civil jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her after she publicly described an encounter in a Manhattan department store dressing room during the 1990s. The jury awarded her $5 million in damages. Trump denied the accusation and challenged the outcome. A federal appeals court upheld the judgment, and his effort to bring the case before the Supreme Court ended when his petition was formally denied on June 29, 2026.
A federal judge later authorized a nearly $5.8 million payment to Carroll, reflecting the original award and interest that accumulated while Trump continued his legal challenges.
Carroll also won a separate defamation verdict in January 2024. That jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million over statements he made about her in 2019. Americans may believe jurors reached the wrong conclusion. They may criticize judges, evidence rules, or damage awards. But describing the case as legally untested ignores the trial, the verdict, and the subsequent appellate process.
Platner’s accusation required caution.
Susan also questioned an allegation involving Platner, the Democratic nominee who had been preparing to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine. Jenny Racicot, a former girlfriend, accused Platner of for