Trump's 25 Sexual Assault Victims Thread

[Anonymous]

Why would she want to be his make up artist if he actually did what she claimed?

And, what was the result of her alleged suit in 1997?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She must have been oh, so traumatized by this episode. But, wait.......

A cosmetics executive who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault during the 2016 presidential race had asked the candidate repeatedly if she could be his campaign makeup artist, emails have revealed.

The Hill reported that Jill Harth, who has publicly accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her during the 1990s wrote to the president in October 2015 asking that she be allowed to do his makeup for "a television interview, a debate, a photo session, anything!"

"It kills me to see you looking too orange and with white circles under the eyes. I will get your skin looking smoother and even toned," she wrote.

In a later email, as she sought to meet then-candidate Trump, Harth said she could act as a campaign surrogate, telling voters how he had improved her life. The New York makeup artist said Trump had "helped me with my self-confidence and all positive things about how he is with women."

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-sexual-assault-accuser-wanted-be-his-makeup-artist-months-allegations-752120

Nice try, OP.

Here's what Harth told The Guardian about that:

"Harth said those emails were written months before Trump called her integrity into question. She also defended her action, as a businesswoman who has never been too proud to look for help where she needs it, even if it smacks of opportunism."

Here's what she told Nicholas Kristoff: "I asked her: If he traumatized and cheated you, why email his aides and meet him?

“I thought I was making nice, maybe they’d call me for makeup, maybe I could get some kind of work out of the dude,” Harth told me. “But it was not well thought out. It came back to bite me, and I look like a fool.”

After Harth and Houraney divorced, she lost her job in Houraney's events planning company. She started a makeup business in New York City, specializing in men's makeup for television. She has a line of makeup products for men.

In her letter to Trump's campaign, she wrote, "I have a huge roster of male clients that I have done grooming on: Richard Branson, Bob Costa, Eliot Spitzer, Chris Wragge from CBS2, Scott Shannon from CBS Radio, the whole CBS2 team actually, and many others in my 15 year career here in NYC. Most recently I did John Hall of Hall & Oates camera ready to do a tv interview using my products formulated for men. John loves the product and wears it all the time. It's not on the market yet because I want to launch it in the right way."

Opportunist or shrewd businesswoman? You decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would she want to be his make up artist if he actually did what she claimed?

And, what was the result of her alleged suit in 1997?

Harth filed her sexual harassment suit in 1997, at the same time her husband, Houraney, filed a suit against Trump for breach of contract. (The couple had an events planning company.) Harth dropped her own suit when Trump settled Houraney's suit for an undisclosed amount. We don't know the terms of the settlement.

[Anonymous]

Who paid off her mortgage?

In another case reported to The Hill, a donor paid off Trump accuser Jill Harth’s $30,000 mortgage. Could this be considered a campaign donation? There are clear indications that the payment was politically motivated, and made with the intent to expose, and possibly stop Trump from being elected. Could the payments be considered unreported campaign contributions, and federal election campaign action violations?

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/lisa-blooms-quest-to-pay-trump-accusers-raises-serious-legal-concerns/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would she want to be his make up artist if he actually did what she claimed?

And, what was the result of her alleged suit in 1997?

Personally, I wouldn't have offered to go near him with a 10-foot pole.

But, she has a line of mens' makeup products. See the post at 8:45 for more info and some of her male clients.

Totally speculating here. But maybe she thought he'd take her up on her offer to do makeup, out of his own self-interest because he wanted to keep her quiet. And maybe she thought this would be tons of publicity for her mens' makeup line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who paid off her mortgage?

In another case reported to The Hill, a donor paid off Trump accuser Jill Harth’s $30,000 mortgage. Could this be considered a campaign donation? There are clear indications that the payment was politically motivated, and made with the intent to expose, and possibly stop Trump from being elected. Could the payments be considered unreported campaign contributions, and federal election campaign action violations?

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/lisa-blooms-quest-to-pay-trump-accusers-raises-serious-legal-concerns/

Fascinating, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who paid off her mortgage?

In another case reported to The Hill, a donor paid off Trump accuser Jill Harth’s $30,000 mortgage. Could this be considered a campaign donation? There are clear indications that the payment was politically motivated, and made with the intent to expose, and possibly stop Trump from being elected. Could the payments be considered unreported campaign contributions, and federal election campaign action violations?

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/lisa-blooms-quest-to-pay-trump-accusers-raises-serious-legal-concerns/

Even if true, none of this means Harth was lying when she filed her sexual assault case way back in 1997, three decades earlier. How much did Trump give to Stormy Daniels?

[Anonymous]

Bloom allegedly gave Harth $30,000 to talk about what she experienced and denies any connection to Clinton’s campaign. The Trump org. gave Stormy Daniels $130,000 and Karen McDougal $150,000 to shut up. Not saying Harth is a saint, but she does look like a bad negotiator.

[Anonymous]

Utter fail. How many of these “accusers” are merely opportunists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Utter fail. How many of these “accusers” are merely opportunists?

Again, please explain how any of this invalidates what Harth swore to in a deposition way back in 1997--that Trump sexually assaulted her. How does anything from 2018 invalidate what happened in 1993, at the time Trump assaulted her? Remember, she's only allegedly being paid to talk about something she swore to three decades ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Utter fail. How many of these “accusers” are merely opportunists?

Again, please explain how any of this invalidates what Harth swore to in a deposition way back in 1997--that Trump sexually assaulted her. How does anything from 2018 invalidate what happened in 1993, at the time Trump assaulted her? Remember, she's only allegedly being paid to talk about something she swore to three decades ago.

Also, Harth’s story in 2018 didn’t change from her deposition in 1997.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Utter fail. How many of these “accusers” are merely opportunists?

Again, please explain how any of this invalidates what Harth swore to in a deposition way back in 1997--that Trump sexually assaulted her. How does anything from 2018 invalidate what happened in 1993, at the time Trump assaulted her? Remember, she's only allegedly being paid to talk about something she swore to three decades ago.

Also, Harth’s story in 2018 didn’t change from her deposition in 1997.

What is really hard to believe is that a woman who was supposedly traumatized by an incident.... enough to file suit - would beg to be the "assaulter's" make up artist years later.
It doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Utter fail. How many of these “accusers” are merely opportunists?

Again, please explain how any of this invalidates what Harth swore to in a deposition way back in 1997--that Trump sexually assaulted her. How does anything from 2018 invalidate what happened in 1993, at the time Trump assaulted her? Remember, she's only allegedly being paid to talk about something she swore to three decades ago.

Also, Harth’s story in 2018 didn’t change from her deposition in 1997.

What is really hard to believe is that a woman who was supposedly traumatized by an incident.... enough to file suit - would beg to be the "assaulter's" make up artist years later.
It doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I wouldn't do it either.

But, Harth does seem to have been a life-long Republican and also to have wanted money. She had a men's makeup line and her speciality was in getting men camera-ready for TV. Can you imagine the free publicity and the boon for her business if she made up Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Utter fail. How many of these “accusers” are merely opportunists?

Again, please explain how any of this invalidates what Harth swore to in a deposition way back in 1997--that Trump sexually assaulted her. How does anything from 2018 invalidate what happened in 1993, at the time Trump assaulted her? Remember, she's only allegedly being paid to talk about something she swore to three decades ago.

Also, Harth’s story in 2018 didn’t change from her deposition in 1997.

What is really hard to believe is that a woman who was supposedly traumatized by an incident.... enough to file suit - would beg to be the "assaulter's" make up artist years later.
It doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I wouldn't do it either.

But, Harth does seem to have been a life-long Republican and also to have wanted money. She had a men's makeup line and her speciality was in getting men camera-ready for TV. Can you imagine the free publicity and the boon for her business if she made up Trump?

Maybe Harth assumed he'd know better than to assault her again, given her obvious willingness to sue him. So did she want to use Trump, maybe even as a sort of revenge, to promote her mens' makeup line? Just guessing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Utter fail. How many of these “accusers” are merely opportunists?

Seems like none of them.

But the cons have a shocking willingness to smear them. 25 victims - and that’s not hardly most of them - and you think they’re opportunists, not that Trump is a slime ball?