Trump's 25 Sexual Assault Victims Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These are the questions that were discussed for 70 pages in the other thread in an attempt to determine if there was sufficient credibility to believe the alleged victim. All I did was pull the questions from the other thread to this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Seems like a good recap to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

See, at least you admit you choose which woman to believe. It’s so hard for many here to admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

See, at least you admit you choose which woman to believe. It’s so hard for many here to admit.

Why is it so hard to understand that “Believe all women” always meant as a presumption before investigating, but never as a blanket acceptance once the facts were known? Will you Cons ever stop trying to twist this phrase?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

See, at least you admit you choose which woman to believe. It’s so hard for many here to admit.

Why is it so hard to understand that “Believe all women” always meant as a presumption before investigating, but never as a blanket acceptance once the facts were known? Will you Cons ever stop trying to twist this phrase?

It’s almost like, by grossly distorting the meaning of “believe women,” they want to make it impossible to believe any women.

[Anonymous]

So back to Ivana. She swore in a deposition during the divorce proceedings that Trump raped her. The final divorce decree contains a gag order. We can all speculate about what those negotiations looked like. Trump’s lawyers release a statement from her retracting the rape accusation but describing something that still looks very much like physical abuse. Trump sues her in 1992 for violating the gag order, so he really means it.

Does anybody have any further light to shed on this, one way or the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So back to Ivana. She swore in a deposition during the divorce proceedings that Trump raped her. The final divorce decree contains a gag order. We can all speculate about what those negotiations looked like. Trump’s lawyers release a statement from her retracting the rape accusation but describing something that still looks very much like physical abuse. Trump sues her in 1992 for violating the gag order, so he really means it.

Does anybody have any further light to shed on this, one way or the other?

How specifically did she violate the gag order? I assume she wrote a book?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to Ivana. She swore in a deposition during the divorce proceedings that Trump raped her. The final divorce decree contains a gag order. We can all speculate about what those negotiations looked like. Trump’s lawyers release a statement from her retracting the rape accusation but describing something that still looks very much like physical abuse. Trump sues her in 1992 for violating the gag order, so he really means it.

Does anybody have any further light to shed on this, one way or the other?

How specifically did she violate the gag order? I assume she wrote a book?

Apparently, around that time in 1992, Ivana wrote a book called “For Love Alone.” It’s supposed to be a thinly-veiled account of their marriage. I can’t find confirmation that this what sparked Trump’s suit, though. One site says it is; other sites are silent.

Here’s what I could find online about the gag order. It says that Ivana can’t talk about Trump without his permission (but a similar gag order does not apply to him). In July 1992, Donald sued Ivana to void the divorce settlement agreement in which she received about $25M, on the grounds that she violated the gag order. An NY state court removed the gag order, but the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These are the questions that were discussed for 70 pages in the other thread in an attempt to determine if there was sufficient credibility to believe the alleged victim. All I did was pull the questions from the other thread to this one.

On the other thread, the accuser FAILED ALL 8 of these. You’re now insisting on a purity test what requires women to PASS ALL of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

See, at least you admit you choose which woman to believe. It’s so hard for many here to admit.

Why is it so hard to understand that “Believe all women” always meant as a presumption before investigating, but never as a blanket acceptance once the facts were known? Will you Cons ever stop trying to twist this phrase?

It’s almost like, by grossly distorting the meaning of “believe women,” they want to make it impossible to believe any women.

Hey! That’s exactly what they want! Never forget: GOP hates women, and doesn’t believe in rape unless it’s an invented charge against a Democrat.

[Anonymous]

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?

+100
She obviously recanted, but OP will refuse to allow her to speak for herself and will instead try and spin this into an actual rape accusation. Wrong. This wasn't one and should not be counted as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I do wonder whether his lawyers got after her and threatened her with god knows what, but I can’t prove that.

This is what anyone with a brain thinks about this accusation. Of course it happened, and he offered her money to STFU about it forever. No we can’t prove it, but it checks out with anyone who has ever paid any attention to Trump.

No, this is what anyone who hates Trump will believe about any and all accusations against him - even (especially??) those without merit or proof. Ivana Trump, in her own words:

“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit,” Ivana said in a statement to CNN. “Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.” https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ivana-trump-denies-accusing-donald-trump-rape-daily-beast-120721

Of course, now you'll claim, as you do above, that he "offered her money" to keep quiet. Again, no proof whatsoever, just your own sick imagination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'd say her ACTUAL WORDS - after the divorce - are far more convincing. But I don't know - I tend to believe most women.
-DP

[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.

BUT THERE ISN'T A "GAG CLAUSE," YOU NITWIT. Talk about trying to make fetch happen. Stop trying to rewrite this story the way YOU think it should go.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

See, at least you admit you choose which woman to believe. It’s so hard for many here to admit.

Why is it so hard to understand that “Believe all women” always meant as a presumption before investigating, but never as a blanket acceptance once the facts were known? Will you Cons ever stop trying to twist this phrase?

It’s almost like, by grossly distorting the meaning of “believe women,” they want to make it impossible to believe any women.

Hey! That’s exactly what they want! Never forget: GOP hates women, and doesn’t believe in rape unless it’s an invented charge against a Democrat.

You've got that exactly backwards. But I'm sure you're aware.