If Trumps child rape case moves to trial...

tommy1808 · Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:46 pm

Hi Folks,

while just being in the US i heard that a status hearing for an alleged child rape by Donald Trump has been scheduled, I started wondering what would happen if this actually moves to trial.

How would the US political system handle a sitting President convicted of Child rape? Could a trial even proceed once he takes office? Questions over questions....

Some linkage:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/11/status ... p-lawsuit/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloo ... 19944.html

best regards
Thomas

coolian2 · Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:07 pm

Should go to trial. Hopefully will if he loses. So sad!

ContentCreator · Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:17 pm

There's no way this will progress to a trial. And even if it did the statute has expired, there's not a credible witness, and there's no physical evidence.

LittleFokker · Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:25 pm

Forget the implications on his Presidency (which he would probably be asked to resign), I'd be more fascinated how they could staff 12 impartial jury members for a trial. Hard to find 12 people in the state of New York that haven't heard of Trump.

tommy1808 · Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:27 pm

ContentCreator wrote:
There's no way this will progress to a trial. And even if it did the statute has expired, there's not a credible witness, and there's no physical evidence.

Expired shouldn´t be a problem since he allegedly threatend her to make her and her family disappear if he doesn´t keep quite. And i think how credible the witnesses, there are two after all, if up to the Jury. But more importantly...

from the HP link:

However, Jane Doe’s attorney, Thomas Meagher, argues in his court filing that because she was threatened by Mr. Trump, she has been under duress all this time, and therefore she should be permitted additional time to come forward. Legally, this is calling “tolling” - stopping the clock, allowing more time to file the case. As a result, the complaint alleges, Jane Doe did not have “freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time.” He cites two New York cases which I have read and which do support tolling

coolian2 wrote:
Should go to trial. Hopefully will if he loses. So sad!

the merit of the case wasn´t the question, the questions was what would it mean if it moves to trial and if those accusations turn out to be right.

best regards
Thomas

ContentCreator · Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:30 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
ContentCreator wrote:
There's no way this will progress to a trial. And even if it did the statute has expired, there's not a credible witness, and there's no physical evidence.

Expired shouldn´t be a problem since he allegedly threatend her to make her and her family disappear if he doesn´t keep quite. And i think how credible the witnesses, there are two after all, if up to the Jury. But more importantly...

from the HP link:
However, Jane Doe’s attorney, Thomas Meagher, argues in his court filing that because she was threatened by Mr. Trump, she has been under duress all this time, and therefore she should be permitted additional time to come forward. Legally, this is calling “tolling” - stopping the clock, allowing more time to file the case. As a result, the complaint alleges, Jane Doe did not have “freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time.” He cites two New York cases which I have read and which do support tolling

coolian2 wrote:
Should go to trial. Hopefully will if he loses. So sad!

the merit of the case wasn´t the question, the questions was what would it mean if it moves to trial and if those accusations turn out to be right.

best regards
Thomas

Well we will see. I highly suspect this is just a smear campaign. 20 years ago and just so happens NOW is the time to come forward? Uh huh.

moo · Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:19 am

ContentCreator wrote:
There's no way this will progress to a trial. And even if it did the statute has expired, there's not a credible witness, and there's no physical evidence.

My abuser was sentenced to 12 years in prison, 26 years after the offences took place. I was deemed to be a credible witness.

ContentCreator · Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:30 am

moo wrote:
ContentCreator wrote:
There's no way this will progress to a trial. And even if it did the statute has expired, there's not a credible witness, and there's no physical evidence.

My abuser was sentenced to 12 years in prison, 26 years after the offences took place. I was deemed to be a credible witness.

What was the crime they were convicted of and were they convicted based on witness testimony? Believe me, I think abusers should be thrown under the jail but how do you convict someone of rape/assault so far after the fact with no physical evidence or with a witness that might might be called into question.

I'm not doubting you at all. I'm sure it was a horrible experience. That said, in Trumps case here how can you convict him of rape with no evidence and a witness saying he did it so far after the fact? How does that work within the bounds of the law?

cpd · Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:58 am

ContentCreator wrote:
I'm not doubting you at all. I'm sure it was a horrible experience. That said, in Trumps case here how can you convict him of rape with no evidence and a witness saying he did it so far after the fact? How does that work within the bounds of the law?

There doesn't seem to be any difference at all, except the alleged abuser in one case is Trump. Which means he is either guilty or innocent, depending on your political persuasion.

rfields5421 · Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:07 am

Being convicted in court of a felony is a prime example of the impeachment sections of the US Constitution.

While two Presidents have been impeached, both were acquitted of the charges at the Senate trial, thus remained in office.

One Secretary of War was impeached and resigned from office rather than face a Senate trial.

All the others impeached were judges on a variety of charges. Some were acquitted, several resigned and eight federal judges were convicted and removed from office.

The last impeachment trial, which resulted in a conviction and removal from office was in December 2010.

One judge, Walter Nixon of Mississippi, sued over his impeachment and conviction. He had been convicted in a criminal trial and was incarcerated to serve his sentence. He refused to resign. The House voted a Bill of Impeachment, the Senate empaneled a committee to review the case and present the information to the full Senate. Nixon sued that he had not received a trial by the full senate.

In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court said the Constitution is very clear, the legislative branch has full and sole power to hold such trials as they see fit, there is no appeal. The judgement of the Senate is final. This was in 1993.

(Interestingly, the US Secretary of State is the person who issues the orders for removal of the impeached/ convicted official from office.)

One US Senator was impeached but the Senate refused to accept the Bill of Impeachment. Citing the article in the Constitution which gives each house of the legislature sole authority to determine rules, penalties and punishment for its members. The Senate did vote to expel that Senator.

One impeached/ convicted federal judge was later elected to Congress as a member of the House of Representatives.

Courts have held that a President cannot 'pardon', commute or modify the removal from office as a result of an impeachment trial, though a President could do that for the criminal trial which was the basis for an impeachment.

DocLightning · Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:22 am

[quote="rfields5421"][/quote]

Thank you for a fascinating read, rfields5421. Do you know what happens when an elected official is convicted of a crime in an ordinary court of law?

afcjets · Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:22 pm

I read the entire HP article, reluctantly because it was written by Gloria Alred's daughter. It really disturbs me, but also that this is coming out now. I guess there is no such thing as an October "surprise" anymore, barring a natural disaster like a hurricane causing Chris Christie to give Obama a bear hug. I had no clue Trump was friends with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the article of course conveniently leaves out that Bill Clinton was too, and flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled on his private jet "Lolita Express" a dozen times. The witness Tiffany Doe is really disturbing, she was Epstein's personal assistant and she said her job was to recruit attractive adolescent girls to attend his parties. She recruited the child accusing both men of rape and claims to have witnessed it back in 1994. AFAIK, it is a crime to know of sexual assault on a minor and not report it, and we are talking 12 not 17. The article does not mention whether or not she has immunity. Something just doesn't quite add up, but of course there will be no time to sort it out before the election, which is why it just came out now, despite the courting filings having occurred in April 2016, which is still suspect in and of itself.

moo · Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:59 pm

ContentCreator wrote:
moo wrote:
ContentCreator wrote:
There's no way this will progress to a trial. And even if it did the statute has expired, there's not a credible witness, and there's no physical evidence.

My abuser was sentenced to 12 years in prison, 26 years after the offences took place. I was deemed to be a credible witness.

What was the crime they were convicted of and were they convicted based on witness testimony? Believe me, I think abusers should be thrown under the jail but how do you convict someone of rape/assault so far after the fact with no physical evidence or with a witness that might might be called into question.

I'm not doubting you at all. I'm sure it was a horrible experience. That said, in Trumps case here how can you convict him of rape with no evidence and a witness saying he did it so far after the fact? How does that work within the bounds of the law?

My abuser was convicted on 6 counts of Gross Indecency involving a Child, and 8 counts of Indecent Assault involving a Child - the definition of rape wasnt updated to include these offences until after the period in question.

As for evidence - being able to describe a 60-odd year old mans penis in great detail, including vasectomy scars, and being able to describe many many accounts of abuse in detail consistently over many times of being asked to describe them goes a long way to convincing a jury.

After my cases result was made public, more than a dozen other men of a similar age came out of the woodwork - he is still undergoing prosecution for many of them, and new victims as they come forward.

Just because a crime was committed so long ago shouldnt give the perpetrator a get out of jail free card, they should be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their life.

tommy1808 · Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:49 pm

afcjets wrote:
I read the entire HP article, reluctantly because it was written by Gloria Alred's daughter.

Now you are judging people by who their mothers are? How civilized of you...
And what is wrong with Gloria Alred? I never heard that name before....

It really disturbs me, but also that this is coming out now.

How exactly is it disturbing that a judges order issued on October 4th is "coming out" now? Is 6 month from filing to this an espechially long or short time? Should the court treat a Trump case differently just because he is Trump?

I had no clue Trump was friends with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the article of course conveniently leaves out that Bill Clinton was too, and flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled on his private jet "Lolita Express" a dozen times.

How is it "convenient" to "leave out" that other people traveled on those Jets too?. Why do you think it is newsworthy to mention that Bill Clinton did it? After all, he ain´t running for President, and he isn´t accused of raping 13-year old girls .... why him, and not the probable Myriads of other people flying with him, that may actually still hold positions of power? How exactly is that relevant to the story?

I think that statement goes way to show how backwards many conservatives thinking is: the women is just an Appendix to her man. No one ever made such a fuzz when the gender roles were reversed...

The witness Tiffany Doe is really disturbing,

Eye witnesses are always disturbing to criminals.

AFAIK, it is a crime to know of sexual assault on a minor and not report it, and we are talking 12 not 17. The article does not mention whether or not she has immunity.

She doesn´t need immunity, unless there is somehow a longer limitation period for knowing about sexual assault of a minor than for actually doing the assault. She didn´t treaten to have her and her family murdered, so she is on the safe side of the law, guilty or not.

Something just doesn't quite add up, .

Actually what is going on does add up fine, high profile rape/assault cases often run this way. And even w/o high profile it often happens just so. A Michigan friend of mine was once raped by a police officer, and only pressed charges when she had become a mother of a daughter, not wanting to just accept rape anymore as something that just happens from time to time if a pretty girl has the audacity to party. He went away.... no idea how fun prison is for an ex-cop/convicted rapists. Because only then she realized that if she doesn´t fight it, her Kid would grow up in a culture where many women think "if a man wants your body, you give it to him". And only now, 33 years after the fact, she is going after the, then, teenage boy that abused her when she was as little as 4 years old.
In a culture where many people, and that is what you are doing at the moment, just assume that a women pressing charges against a rapist is just trying to get back at someone or has another sort of agenda going or that it is somehow their own fault that they got raped ("you should not have worn that skirt", and that kind of BS) doing so ain´t easy and needs a lot of courage. Of course false accusation happens and should be punished quite severely, but assuming that it is all made up is just disgusting.

best regards
Thomas

MaverickM11 · Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:30 pm

Has any Presidential candidate ever faced this many lawsuits? Or is 3500 lawsuits a reasonable number for a company? Trump et al seems to be really sue happy, mostly due to self induced crises.

afcjets wrote:
It really disturbs me, but also that this is coming out now

I thought this was common knowledge for months, if not years?

afcjets · Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:11 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Has any Presidential candidate ever faced this many lawsuits? Or is 3500 lawsuits a reasonable number for a company? Trump et al seems to be really sue happy, mostly due to self induced crises.

I doubt any President has but perhaps other billionaires, I have no idea what a a reasonable number of lawsuits for a multi-billionaire who has been involved in as many businesses as he has is.

MaverickM11 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
It really disturbs me, but also that this is coming out now

I thought this was common knowledge for months, if not years?

This is the first time I have heard a then 12 year old accused Trump of rape. If it had been known for years, I would think Jeb and others would have made it an issue in the primaries.

777Jet · Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:30 am

afcjets wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Has any Presidential candidate ever faced this many lawsuits? Or is 3500 lawsuits a reasonable number for a company? Trump et al seems to be really sue happy, mostly due to self induced crises.

I doubt any President has but perhaps other billionaires, I have no idea what a a reasonable number of lawsuits for a multi-billionaire who has been involved in as many businesses as he has is.

MaverickM11 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
It really disturbs me, but also that this is coming out now

I thought this was common knowledge for months, if not years?

This is the first time I have heard a then 12 year old accused Trump of rape. If it had been known for years, I would think Jeb and others would have made it an issue in the primaries.

Is anybody really surprised that many decades old *allegations*, concerning a celebrity billionaire POTUS candidate, are coming to light for the first time conveniently just weeks before the general election? I'm not. Hello smear campaign! Welcome to the modern era of politics for those living in the past.

I hope that the people who have been sitting on such information for so long get investigated too.

MaverickM11 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:58 am

777Jet wrote:
afcjets wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Has any Presidential candidate ever faced this many lawsuits? Or is 3500 lawsuits a reasonable number for a company? Trump et al seems to be really sue happy, mostly due to self induced crises.

I doubt any President has but perhaps other billionaires, I have no idea what a a reasonable number of lawsuits for a multi-billionaire who has been involved in as many businesses as he has is.

MaverickM11 wrote:
I thought this was common knowledge for months, if not years?

This is the first time I have heard a then 12 year old accused Trump of rape. If it had been known for years, I would think Jeb and others would have made it an issue in the primaries.

Is anybody really surprised that many decades old *allegations*, concerning a celebrity billionaire POTUS candidate, are coming to light for the first time conveniently just weeks before the general election? I'm not. Hello smear campaign! Welcome to the modern era of politics for those living in the past.

I hope that the people who have been sitting on such information for so long get investigated too.

Is it possible to smear flaming fecal matter? Seems like bringing sand to the Sahara. We all knew trump was a dumpster fire of a dreadful human being; even his space cadet stepford wives troupe have pretty much conceded he's the human papilloma virus of men, "he's not the Pope!". If that's a smear then what is Trump bringing in women from Bill Clinton's past, that Ken Starr couldn't even use for his witch hunt?

WarRI1 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:07 am

I was taught that if you did anything wrong, it could come back to haunt you later in life. It was pounded into us of a certain age and this was long before instant communications and photos and email records. To this day, I have a spotless record and still worry about my reputation and also of my family. I cannot believe this insanity and stupidity. Are either candidates unaware of this or do they just not care? I have never seen such stupidity as exhibited by both candidates and parties in this election. They really both deserve to lose. I take this as an example of the corruption in our society.

OA412 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:09 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
Then what is Trump bringing in women from Bill Clinton's past, that Ken Starr couldn't even use for his witch hunt?

I've gotten to the point where, for the sake of my own sanity, I have to believe that people like him are just trying to get under our collective skin.

777Jet · Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:09 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
If that's a smear then what is Trump bringing in women from Bill Clinton's past, that Ken Starr couldn't even use for his witch hunt?

Let's look at the definition:

'smear campaign' - a plan to discredit a public figure by making false accusations.

Trump is only facing conveniently timed allegations. Some of the Bill Clinton incidents with other women are fact, so using them as examples do not fit the definition of a smear campaign.

Anyway, given that Hillary has attacked Trumps character / judgement, he is clearly doing the same to her. He must believe that her decision to stay with Bill after his history with other women illustrates her bad judgement and lack of morals. After lying in office, Bill eventually admitted to what he did with Lewinsky. Bill settled with Paula Jones for $850,000 so he obviously did something there. So, it's not as if these examples are just allegations. Trump only faces allegations on the other hand - allegations that have been saved for decades right until now. A bit too convenient the timing?

Anyway, Trump feeling that the system is corrupt and rigged and whatever, will just keep on using these examples I suspect to illustrate Hillary's character / judgement / lack of morals. He is clearly pissed off, even with the GOP, and the more he feels that the system is rigged and against him, the more he will go on the attack. I guess that is his game plan, whilst Hillary's is to lay low. At the end of the day, Trump has nothing to lose, except for maybe a fraction of his fortune, if he loses the election so it will be gloves off for him until the end. As for career politician Hillary, former first lady whose POTUS husband cheated on her, first female POTUS want to be... she has a lot more to lose if she doesn't pull off the victory and become POTUS. It will be pretty much good night for her - career almost over? It will be back to business as usual for Trump. This is one nasty campaign regardless.

MaverickM11 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:12 am

777Jet wrote:

'smear campaign' - a plan to discredit a public figure by making false accusations.

This is literally all Trump does, all day, 24/7.

777Jet wrote:
Trump is only facing conveniently timed allegations. Some of the Bill Clinton incidents with other women are fact, so using them as examples do not fit the definition of a smear campaign.

And bringing them up during his wife's campaign 20 years later is not a smear campaign? 99% of the "smear" is just quoting Trump directly that does the damage.

777Jet wrote:
Anyway, given that Hillary has attacked Trumps character / judgement, he is clearly doing the same to her. He must believe that her decision to stay with Bill after his history with other women illustrates her bad judgement and lack of morals. After lying in office, Bill eventually admitted to what he did with Lewinsky. Bill settled with Paula Jones for $850,000 so he obviously did something there.

So let me get this straight, she has bad judgement because she stayed with her husband while Trump has great judgment for cheating on every single wife, violently raping one, and telling the world he grabs the pussy without consent and goes after married women with Melania at home. Moreover Trump has loads of settled lawsuits, so "he obviously did something there" right? We'll just assume he's guilty every single time he settled...which is a lot.

777Jet wrote:
It will be back to business as usual for Trump. This is one nasty campaign regardless.

The Trump brand was a laughing stock before, but now it's also toxic.

Tugger · Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:28 am

777Jet wrote:
Hello smear campaign! Welcome to the modern era of politics for those living in the past.

I hope that the people who have been sitting on such information for so long get investigated too.

Wait, who was gloating about and trumpeting about an "October Surprise" via a release of hacked emails? I am certain of course there would be no smearing if anything interesting were to have been released (and I also still expect full "smearing" and crowing to occur if anything is found).

Tugg

seb146 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:06 am

I am really sick of all these people defending this sexual predator. Times have changed. Even in the 1990s, it was hard for women to get up the courage to face their accusers. And, someone of Trump's financial backing was impossible. There may be a statute of limitations, but the number of women coming forward with similar stories and the number of men who witnessed his behavior should be enough to turn this guy off. Instead of acting innocent and properly apologizing and using the courts and sanity to defend himself, he screams about filing law suits for slander.

With his temperament, I am certain he did these things.

tommy1808 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:05 am

777Jet wrote:
[Some of the Bill Clinton incidents with other women are fact, so using them as examples do not fit the definition of a smear campaign.

##

of course it does, because he ain´t running for president. If there ever has been an indication that Hillary is as white as a politician can be, it is the ridiculous focus on her husband...

A smear campaign is

a campaign to tarnish the reputation of a public figure, especially by vilification or innuendo.

and using someone else´s failures to make someone look bad in public fits the definition of a smear campaign just perfectly. He ain´t running for president, so why the obsession of beating down on the most effective US president since Kennedy?

He must believe that her decision to stay with Bill after his history with other women illustrates her bad judgement and lack of morals.

Yeah, he must believe it, of course...... maybe they are just having an open relationship, which would negate both bad judgement and lack of morals at the same time?
Isn´t forgiving a supposedly a cornerstone of being Christian? Those Christians that pray to Jesus instead of the golden Calve at least....

At the end of the day, Trump has nothing to lose, except for maybe a fraction of his fortune, if he loses the election so it will be gloves off for him until the end. As for career politician Hillary, former first lady whose POTUS husband cheated on her, first female POTUS want to be... she has a lot more to lose if she doesn't pull off the victory and become POTUS.

So, i guess in your twisted world going on giving speeches for tens or thousands of USD a piece is worse that getting your butt raped by fellow inmates after being convicted of raping a child? Because if those allegations are shown to be true, that is exactly what is going to happen.... Trump has a lot more to lose than anyone else that ran for President of the USA, his freedom. For good. Well, i guess he can run and his bedmate Putin will give him Asylum or something.....
Funny thing, i wanted this thread to be about the political implications of a sitting/elected US President being convicted of child rape, tried to keep it on track, and all the the TDL (Trump Defense League) wants to discus are the the merits of the case. Why do you feel the need to defend him? Its a allegation, courts will sort it out.... nothing to see, move along. Barking dogs seldom bite, so what´s with all the noise....

best regards
Thomas

pvjin · Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:08 am

seb146 wrote:
I am really sick of all these people defending this sexual predator. Times have changed. Even in the 1990s, it was hard for women to get up the courage to face their accusers. And, someone of Trump's financial backing was impossible. There may be a statute of limitations, but the number of women coming forward with similar stories and the number of men who witnessed his behavior should be enough to turn this guy off. Instead of acting innocent and properly apologizing and using the courts and sanity to defend himself, he screams about filing law suits for slander.

With his temperament, I am certain he did these things.

I'm certain he didn't do those things and the people claiming he did are just bunch of money hungry losers, otherwise they would have come out with accusations much before the elections. A rich man like Trump doesn't need to do such things to get what he want, he has the money to buy all women in the world.

If he's innocent why should he apologize to bunch of liars anyway? If any person ever accuses me of a crime I didn't do I'll treat him/her with no respect whatsoever.

HGL · Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:35 am

pvjin wrote:
otherwise they would have come out with accusations much before the elections.

Perhaps if the video in which Trump boasted of doing such things had not appeared, the women might not have come forward. Hearing the arrogant boasting and general demeaning of women may have simply been too much for them to stomach. Besides, there have been law suits filed long before Trump announced his intention of running. Some were dropped following private settlement. As people argued that when Bill Clinton settled that implied "something happened", is it not reasonable to apply the same standard to Trump?

pvjin wrote:
A rich man like Trump doesn't need to do such things to get what he want, he has the money to buy all women in the world.

You fail to appreciate the feeling of power that riches can convey. Trump boasted, "when you are rich you can do that." In a way it is similar to people who have money in their pocket yet still enjoy the thrill of shoplifting. Note, I am not comparing rape or sexual assault to stealing but the idea that you can do what you want and get away with it.

While I have no way of knowing if the individual claims made by these women are true, I don't for a single second doubt that Trump is capable of having carried out the attacks he stands accused of. Trump's character is such that he is a bully, bombastic, arrogant, selfish, inconsiderate, an inveterate liar and a cheat. His behaviour proves that.

coolian2 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:36 am

WarRI1 wrote:
I was taught that if you did anything wrong, it could come back to haunt you later in life. It was pounded into us of a certain age and this was long before instant communications and photos and email records. To this day, I have a spotless record and still worry about my reputation and also of my family.

I'm similar but totally different. I've made mistakes and I own them. Did I cheat on my ex-wife? Yeah, I was a moron who didn't have the balls to escape a failing relationship without blowing it up in apocalyptic fashion.

If I can admit that at age 28 (and have done so from a much younger age), how can someone as old as Donald Trump not admit to even a basic error? Let alone this possible disaster.

neutrino · Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:40 am

777Jet wrote:
A bit too convenient the timing?

His recorded boasts (that only recently surfaced) and later denials are the straws that broke the camel's back.

neutrino · Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:40 am

pvjin wrote:
. A rich man like Trump doesn't need to do such things to get what he want, he has the money to buy all women in the world.

His money couldn't buy the married woman.

Kiwirob · Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:30 am

777Jet wrote:
As for career politician Hillary, former first lady whose POTUS husband cheated on her, first female POTUS want to be... she has a lot more to lose if she doesn't pull off the victory and become POTUS. It will be pretty much good night for her - career almost over? It will be back to business as usual for Trump. This is one nasty campaign regardless.

Hillary is getting on a bit, this will be her last chance, if she loses she'll hit the speaking circuit and rake in a fortune as Bill is already doing. Trump on the other hand if he loses I think it absolutely will not be business as usual for him, these charges aren't going to go away whatever happens, and I bet that this will not be the last uinderage girl coming forward with an alegation of rape against Trump, it's the tip of thye iceberg. I also wouldn't mind betting that he had a crack at his daughters as well, especially after the comments he's made about Ivanka, that's not how a father speaks about his daughter.

Kiwirob · Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:41 am

pvjin wrote:
I'm certain he didn't do those things and the people claiming he did are just bunch of money hungry losers, otherwise they would have come out with accusations much before the elections. A rich man like Trump doesn't need to do such things to get what he want, he has the money to buy all women in the world.

If he's innocent why should he apologize to bunch of liars anyway? If any person ever accuses me of a crime I didn't do I'll treat him/her with no respect whatsoever.

You don't get the uber rich do you, yes they can buy whatever they want, but that's not where the fun is, taking it because you're uber rich is what most of these guys would prefer to do, if necessary they can buy there way out of trouble.

When he first announced his run for POTUS I thought he was just playing ot his audience, he surely can't be that stupid in real life, turns out he was more than that stupid, what's really sad is a whole bunch, tens of millions of people like the guy, this he would make a great president and don't have a problem with his attitude, that people would defend this man now is insane and a poor reflection on the American people.

afcjets · Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:03 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
I read the entire HP article, reluctantly because it was written by Gloria Alred's daughter.

Now you are judging people by who their mothers are? How civilized of you...
And what is wrong with Gloria Alred? I never heard that name before....

I am not judging her by her mother (however they do have a similiar career path), I am judging her intentions, or should say her self-promotng mother's intentions. Here she is, and if you live in the US I am sure you will recognize her. Whether it be Charlie Sheen (US actor), Tiger Woods, any male celebrity alleged to have in someway victimized a woman, she is front and center. The irony is when I posted this over the weekend, I had no idea her mother had surfaced yet, how naive of me...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ailsignout

afcjets · Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:43 pm

afcjets wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
I read the entire HP article, reluctantly because it was written by Gloria Alred's daughter.

Now you are judging people by who their mothers are? How civilized of you...
And what is wrong with Gloria Alred? I never heard that name before....

I am not judging her by her mother (however they do have a similiar career path), I am judging her self-promotng mother's intentions. Here she is, and if you live in the US I am sure you will recognize her. Whether it be Charlie Sheen (US actor), Tiger Woods, any male celebrity alleged to have in someway victimized a woman, she is front and center. The irony is when I posted this over the weekend, I had no idea her mother had surfaced yet, how naive of me...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ailsignout

wingman · Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:54 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
When he first announced his run for POTUS I thought he was just playing ot his audience, he surely can't be that stupid in real life, turns out he was more than that stupid, what's really sad is a whole bunch, tens of millions of people like the guy, this he would make a great president and don't have a problem with his attitude, that people would defend this man now is insane and a poor reflection on the American people.

I don't agree with Rob on much of anything but this is spot on. The real truth behind Trump, outside of his now very obvious racist and misogynist beliefs, is in his tax return history. I think what we'll all end up learning is that Trump operates on the very edge of a marketing ponzi scheme, using other people's money to build shell company upon shell company and then skimming his millions off the top without any clear ownership of the underlying assets. And his long history of bankruptcies show his avid penchant for putting thousands of people out of work. He's the worst sort of "successful" businessman because it's all brand-induced fantasy bullshit. He doesn't just play the tax rules, he's a professional gamer just like the kids in the basement.

777Jet · Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:02 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
I also wouldn't mind betting that he had a crack at his daughters as well, especially after the comments he's made about Ivanka, that's not how a father speaks about his daughter.

Interesting thought process you have there.

I wonder what seb146 thinks about that:

seb146 wrote:
With his temperament, I am certain he did these things.

I bet you are! LOL

Kiwirob · Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:53 pm

777Jet wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
I also wouldn't mind betting that he had a crack at his daughters as well, especially after the comments he's made about Ivanka, that's not how a father speaks about his daughter.

Interesting thought process you have there.

It's not hard to make the leap when you read his comments about her over the years. I don't know if you have kids or not but fathers just don't talk about daughters like this.

When Donald Trump was watching his 16-year-old daughter Ivanka host the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant, he turned to the then-Miss Universe and asked: “Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?”

That anecdote, told to the New York Times by Brook Antoinette Mahealani Lee, appears to be the first recorded incident of the Republican presidential candidate and reality TV star making comments about his daughter’s body which those present have deemed inappropriate.

In the almost 20 years since, Mr Trump has called his eldest daughter “voluptuous”. He’s said it’s OK to describe her as “a piece of ass”, though she is a senior executive in his business empire. And he’s said that, if she wasn’t his daughter, “perhaps [he’d] be dating her”.

On The Howard Stern Show, 2003

Donald Trump bragged about his then-22-year-old daughter’s body, saying: “You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka.

“My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body. She made a lot money as a model—a tremendous amount.”

On The Howard Stern Show, October 2006

Stern remarks that Ivanka “looks more voluptuous than ever”, and asked if she has received breast implants. Trump engages in the discussion, saying she has not.

“She's actually always been very voluptuous,” Trump responds. “She's tall, she's almost 6 feet tall and she's been, she's an amazing beauty.”

Aesma · Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:04 pm

pvjin wrote:
I'm certain he didn't do those things and the people claiming he did are just bunch of money hungry losers, otherwise they would have come out with accusations much before the elections.

The election process didn't make him rich and famous. He was rich and famous long ago.

seb146 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:17 pm

pvjin wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I am really sick of all these people defending this sexual predator. Times have changed. Even in the 1990s, it was hard for women to get up the courage to face their accusers. And, someone of Trump's financial backing was impossible. There may be a statute of limitations, but the number of women coming forward with similar stories and the number of men who witnessed his behavior should be enough to turn this guy off. Instead of acting innocent and properly apologizing and using the courts and sanity to defend himself, he screams about filing law suits for slander.

With his temperament, I am certain he did these things.

I'm certain he didn't do those things and the people claiming he did are just bunch of money hungry losers, otherwise they would have come out with accusations much before the elections. A rich man like Trump doesn't need to do such things to get what he want, he has the money to buy all women in the world.

If he's innocent why should he apologize to bunch of liars anyway? If any person ever accuses me of a crime I didn't do I'll treat him/her with no respect whatsoever.

When he had one TV show and some failing casinos, there was really no reason for anyone to come forward. If he had just kept to his "business" model, no, none of this would have come out. But, the president needs to be held to a higher standard than some reality TV host. Bill Clinton nearly lost the presidency because of philandering. Why shouldn't Trump be held to the exact same standard?

OA412 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:24 pm

Oh look, things just keep getting better for the orange wonder:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /91832012/

SOBHI51 · Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:03 pm

OA412 wrote:
Oh look, things just keep getting better for the orange wonder:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /91832012/

And this

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/opinions/ ... index.html

777Jet · Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:59 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
777Jet wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
I also wouldn't mind betting that he had a crack at his daughters as well, especially after the comments he's made about Ivanka, that's not how a father speaks about his daughter.

Interesting thought process you have there.

It's not hard to make the leap when you read his comments about her over the years. I don't know if you have kids or not but fathers just don't talk about daughters like this.

I know that, but to suggest that "he had a crack at his daughters as well" is stretching it a bit.

Such comments should not really come as a surprise from Trump. Big ego. Politically incorrect. Says what's on his mind. Involved in beauty contests. Surrounded by beautiful women. That could be his unique way of doing what other parents do when they say or ask (my 'child's name' is so beautiful! / isn't my 'child's name' so beautiful?). At least he is not as delusional as the parents of ugly little monsters who parade their ugly child around and ask "isn't my little 'child's name' such a cutie?" - "No, it's an ugly little monster!"

If you seriously think Trump has had a crack as his daughters then so be it. I think Bill Clinton would be more likely to have done something disgusting like that given that it is proven that he can't control his willy.

ElliottM · Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:53 am

Ivanka really is beautiful and I don't think it's weird for Donald to point that out. There have been some strange comments here and there, but it's a big leap to say he sexually abused her or something. There's no evidence of that.

As for the other accusers of both Trump and Bill Clinton, I really don't know. For Hillary's part, I actually think it's admirable to stay and work it out with a spouse who cheated. But it's not admirable to stay with a rapist who you *know* is guilty. I am just waiting for the justice system to resolve these cases. I realize Bill settled with at least one of his accusers, which *can* suggest guilt. But overall, a settlement is not really an admission of guilt. I used to be a patient advocate and I started out always believing the patients and disbelieving the hospitals and doctors. Within months, I discovered that more often than not, when a hospital or doctor settled with a patient, the hospital or doctor had done nothing wrong. They would settle when the court process would become too expensive, or for any other number of reasons. A long trial is also bad for PR. I want to believe Bill is guilty, but my experiences show me that a settlement is no admission of guilt. A good question is, "Why would Bill settle if he didn't do anything?" - but this is matched with "Wouldn't the accuser want Bill behind bars if he actually raped her?" There's this idea that a legitimate perpetrator would want to settle, but a legitimate victim would not. Either is possible, I don't know - my point is only that settlement cuts both ways. My honest hope is that ALL the accusers are lying and no woman or child got raped.

WarRI1 · Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:18 am

coolian2 wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
I was taught that if you did anything wrong, it could come back to haunt you later in life. It was pounded into us of a certain age and this was long before instant communications and photos and email records. To this day, I have a spotless record and still worry about my reputation and also of my family.

I'm similar but totally different. I've made mistakes and I own them. Did I cheat on my ex-wife? Yeah, I was a moron who didn't have the balls to escape a failing relationship without blowing it up in apocalyptic fashion.

If I can admit that at age 28 (and have done so from a much younger age), how can someone as old as Donald Trump not admit to even a basic error? Let alone this possible disaster.

I think the born with the silver spoon in your mouth syndrome is at work here. A feeling of entitled, special, above it all and my Father will save me kind of thinking. They do think they are special and that is a problem with some, but not all. I give you credit for being a man and owning up to your own mistakes. That I respect. Trump is a Demagogue, everything is somebody else's fault. Maybe, just maybe he is a sexual predator from thinking he is special and women are not. It was and still is a problem in our society and many others.

coolian2 · Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:23 am

WarRI1 wrote:
coolian2 wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
I was taught that if you did anything wrong, it could come back to haunt you later in life. It was pounded into us of a certain age and this was long before instant communications and photos and email records. To this day, I have a spotless record and still worry about my reputation and also of my family.

I'm similar but totally different. I've made mistakes and I own them. Did I cheat on my ex-wife? Yeah, I was a moron who didn't have the balls to escape a failing relationship without blowing it up in apocalyptic fashion.

If I can admit that at age 28 (and have done so from a much younger age), how can someone as old as Donald Trump not admit to even a basic error? Let alone this possible disaster.

I think the born with the silver spoon in your mouth syndrome is at work here. A feeling of entitled, special, above it all and my Father will save me kind of thinking. They do think they are special and that is a problem with some, but not all. I give you credit for being a man and owning up to your own mistakes. That I respect. Trump is a Demagogue, everything is somebody else's fault. Maybe, just maybe he is a sexual predator from thinking he is special and women are not. It was and still is a problem in our society and many others.

I think we reach our opinions on him from two different directions and they both come up the same. You've conducted yourself with honour, I've made mistakes but admit them. We both see he's a man incapable of either of those, and thus, the introspection to grow up and own his own life.

Aesma · Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:50 am

I was a kid at the time but I'm reading that Paula Jones accused Bill of exposing himself to her. I'm not condoning this but it's not exactly rape either.

777Jet · Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:19 am

ElliottM wrote:
A good question is, "Why would Bill settle if he didn't do anything?" - but this is matched with "Wouldn't the accuser want Bill behind bars if he actually raped her?"

Money talks. It depends how much the accuser could be bought for. I suspect that almost all people could be bought if the price was right. For the rare few that could not be bought, I doubt that they would place themselves in that type of situation to begin with.

ElliottM wrote:
But overall, a settlement is not really an admission of guilt. I used to be a patient advocate and I started out always believing the patients and disbelieving the hospitals and doctors. Within months, I discovered that more often than not, when a hospital or doctor settled with a patient, the hospital or doctor had done nothing wrong. They would settle when the court process would become too expensive, or for any other number of reasons.

Valid point if settling is cheaper and less time consuming than the court process. However, if you know your are innocent and choose the legal option instead of being extorted, and then if you are found not guilty after the court process, who then is responsible for the legal costs? I would hope that the accuser who made the allegations that were dismissed would be responsible for ALL legal costs on both sides (not that they would have that kind of money in many instances).

Kiwirob · Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:41 am

777Jet wrote:

If you seriously think Trump has had a crack as his daughters then so be it. I think Bill Clinton would be more likely to have done something disgusting like that given that it is proven that he can't control his willy.

Yet it's Trump who is alleged to have raped a 12 year old, so far nobody has accused Bill of the same.

seb146 · Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:27 am

777Jet wrote:
ElliottM wrote:
A good question is, "Why would Bill settle if he didn't do anything?" - but this is matched with "Wouldn't the accuser want Bill behind bars if he actually raped her?"

Money talks. It depends how much the accuser could be bought for. I suspect that almost all people could be bought if the price was right. For the rare few that could not be bought, I doubt that they would place themselves in that type of situation to begin with.

First of all: BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! Yes, what he did was disgusting, but he is not running for president, so Bill's character has zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with Hillary's ability to run the United States.

Second: One accuser does not stand a chance against a man who can game the American tax code for nearly a billion dollars. If he has that much money and power to pay off and cheat the government, imagine what he can do to one woman. But, if more and more women come forward with what he did, that really speaks to his character and what the power of many voices speaking truth to power can do.

777Jet · Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:05 am

seb146 wrote:
if more and more women come forward with what he did, that really speaks to his character and what the power of many voices speaking truth to power can do.

Or it speaks of the gold-digging nature of their character.

Anyway, if that is your position, if that is all it takes to establish 'truth' as far as you are concerned, if a few guys come forward and claim that you sexually assaulted them then it must be true!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net