Trump's 25 Sexual Assault Victims Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on legal constraints on Ivana discussing this.

Their settlement had a confidentiality clause preventing Ivana from discussing the marriage or divorce.

In 1992, Trump sued Ivana for not honoring the gag clause in their divorce agreement by disclosing facts in her book. Trump won a gag order.

That's what a confidentiality clause is.
Ask Mariah Carey or Brad Pitt.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the book All The President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator, Ivana confirmed to a journalist in 2011 that it was rape. The journalist wanted to remain anonymous and Ivana wouldn’t confirm. There is still a gag order on Ivana.

Not convincing. Nobody on the record?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the book All The President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator, Ivana confirmed to a journalist in 2011 that it was rape. The journalist wanted to remain anonymous and Ivana wouldn’t confirm. There is still a gag order on Ivana.

Not convincing. Nobody on the record?

Gag clause, obviously.

Her sworn deposition—before the divorce was finalized with its confidentiality agreement/gag clause—is pretty convincing.

[Anonymous]

If we don’t believe Tara Reade because her story changed, we can’t believe Ivana because her story changed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we don’t believe Tara Reade because her story changed, we can’t believe Ivana because her story changed

Great, so you can stop bumping the Reade/Biden thread now. It’s 70 pages and “fetch” still isn’t happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we don’t believe Tara Reade because her story changed, we can’t believe Ivana because her story changed

If there are plausible reasons for the story changing—a gag clause—of course we can believe Ivana before the gag clause.

In fact, the pre-gag clause version is more likely to be plausible than after she was tagged by Trump’s lawyers.

It’s also interesting that the statement Trump’s legal team issued on her behalf is still consistent with physical assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we don’t believe Tara Reade because her story changed, we can’t believe Ivana because her story changed

If there are plausible reasons for the story changing—a gag clause—of course we can believe Ivana before the gag clause.

In fact, the pre-gag clause version is more likely to be plausible than after she was tagged by Trump’s lawyers.

It’s also interesting that the statement Trump’s legal team issued on her behalf is still consistent with physical assault.

^^^ gagged not tagged

[Anonymous]

Are Ivana and Ivanka close?

It must be so weird knowing your father raped your mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scratch her off your list too, OP.

Susanna Reid asked Ivana - the first wife of President Donald Trump and mother to Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric - how her husband of 15 years treated women.

"He treated me fantastic I never had a problem, always polite always outspoken," she said.

"During divorce it was nasty because lawyers were involved once it was over we became friends," she said.

When Susanna quizzed her about her previous allegations, she answered: "It was the lawyers’ stuff, he never touched me badly no screaming slamming the doors it was just question of the money."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/donald-trumps-ex-wife-ivana-11853507

Do you not believe women?

Ivana recounted the rape in a sworn deposition. I believe that.

And, has since said that was from the lawyers. Do you not believe her? Do you not believe women?

I’m not questioning that he usually treated her “fantastic” like your article says, and that possibly this was an aberration. I don’t know. I do wonder whether his lawyers got after her and threatened her with god knows what, but I can’t prove that.

I do know from BI what she usually says to her friends, not for public consumption. She tells her friends he raped her.

You obviously don’t believe women.

I believe her most recent statement. Divorce can be messy.
Do you believe that Sherrod Brown committed domestic abuse toward his wife? Because that is what was stated in divorce proceedings.

"Renacci has repeatedly criticized Brown for a domestic abuse allegation and restraining order filed by Brown’s first wife against him during heated divorce
proceedings in 1986."

https://www.rollcall.com/2018/10/18/sherrod-brown-desperate-sexual-assault-claims-wont-work/

Brown? Try and focus.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so Ivana said it was rape and after a visit from Drunpf’s lawyers, she changed her mind. We can choose to believe whichever story we like best.

[Anonymous]

In the other thread one of the prevailing themes was that women should be believed but only after their credibility has been proven. And while I think Trump is a sleazeball, the same criteria used in the other thread should be applied here:

1- are there any inconsistencies in the story told by the alleged victim? do any details change?

2 - is there anything in the alleged victim's past or present that tells us about her character and whether or not she should be believed?

3- are there any details that we know about the alleged assault that seem implausible - the clothes worn, the weather that day etc

4- what was the timeline for coming forward? was there a delay? Are there any possible alternative motivations for disclosure and for the timeline?

5- did the alleged victim not tell multiple people soon after the event or are some supposed witnesses not willing to talk openly and publicly?

6 - is the alleged victim's story different from your own experience and the experience of others you know. did the alleged victim didn't act and react the way you did or would expect to them to act and react?

7- has the alleged victim been unable to produce documents or videos or other material evidence to show the assault happened?

8 - did the alleged victim forget any details of what happened or are there any gaps in the story?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then the alleged victim does not have the credibility to be believed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the other thread one of the prevailing themes was that women should be believed but only after their credibility has been proven. And while I think Trump is a sleazeball, the same criteria used in the other thread should be applied here:

1- are there any inconsistencies in the story told by the alleged victim? do any details change?

2 - is there anything in the alleged victim's past or present that tells us about her character and whether or not she should be believed?

3- are there any details that we know about the alleged assault that seem implausible - the clothes worn, the weather that day etc

4- what was the timeline for coming forward? was there a delay? Are there any possible alternative motivations for disclosure and for the timeline?

5- did the alleged victim not tell multiple people soon after the event or are some supposed witnesses not willing to talk openly and publicly?

6 - is the alleged victim's story different from your own experience and the experience of others you know. did the alleged victim didn't act and react the way you did or would expect to them to act and react?

7- has the alleged victim been unable to produce documents or videos or other material evidence to show the assault happened?

8 - did the alleged victim forget any details of what happened or are there any gaps in the story?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then the alleged victim does not have the credibility to be believed.

These are bogus criteria. What is your agenda?

No, Ivana probably didn’t have CCTV running in her bedroom when she was allegedly attacked (#7). She did, however swear to her allegations in a deposition (#7). Your #7 is a ridiculous standard. Talk about not believing women....

In fact there are plausible reasons—a new gag clause—why Ivana’s story changed between her sworn deposition and after the divorce was finalized (#1). Why did you exclude the possibility of solid explanations for a story change from your “list”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the other thread one of the prevailing themes was that women should be believed but only after their credibility has been proven. And while I think Trump is a sleazeball, the same criteria used in the other thread should be applied here:

1- are there any inconsistencies in the story told by the alleged victim? do any details change?

2 - is there anything in the alleged victim's past or present that tells us about her character and whether or not she should be believed?

3- are there any details that we know about the alleged assault that seem implausible - the clothes worn, the weather that day etc

4- what was the timeline for coming forward? was there a delay? Are there any possible alternative motivations for disclosure and for the timeline?

5- did the alleged victim not tell multiple people soon after the event or are some supposed witnesses not willing to talk openly and publicly?

6 - is the alleged victim's story different from your own experience and the experience of others you know. did the alleged victim didn't act and react the way you did or would expect to them to act and react?

7- has the alleged victim been unable to produce documents or videos or other material evidence to show the assault happened?

8 - did the alleged victim forget any details of what happened or are there any gaps in the story?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then the alleged victim does not have the credibility to be believed.

You are a dummy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the other thread one of the prevailing themes was that women should be believed but only after their credibility has been proven. And while I think Trump is a sleazeball, the same criteria used in the other thread should be applied here:

1- are there any inconsistencies in the story told by the alleged victim? do any details change?

2 - is there anything in the alleged victim's past or present that tells us about her character and whether or not she should be believed?

3- are there any details that we know about the alleged assault that seem implausible - the clothes worn, the weather that day etc

4- what was the timeline for coming forward? was there a delay? Are there any possible alternative motivations for disclosure and for the timeline?

5- did the alleged victim not tell multiple people soon after the event or are some supposed witnesses not willing to talk openly and publicly?

6 - is the alleged victim's story different from your own experience and the experience of others you know. did the alleged victim didn't act and react the way you did or would expect to them to act and react?

7- has the alleged victim been unable to produce documents or videos or other material evidence to show the assault happened?

8 - did the alleged victim forget any details of what happened or are there any gaps in the story?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then the alleged victim does not have the credibility to be believed.

You are a dummy.

+1. LOL, does pp think this is how it works in court?

This reminds me of the bad old days when women were required to provide witnesses to their rape, otherwise they got jailed for libeling the rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Ivana and Ivanka close?

It must be so weird knowing your father raped your mother.

Ivanka has clearly compartmentalized about a lot of stuff in her life.

Those compartments are known as safe deposit boxes.