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?

+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.

She was obviously threatened by Trump’s lawyers.

Really? Please do present some evidence that shows she was “threatened” in any way - other than in your fevered dreams. God, you people are SO predictable.

Anonymous wrote:On other point to keep in mind, the divorce was granted on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. In New York, that typically means he was regularly physically abusive or threatening to the point of creating real fear. The rape accusation was used to help establish the grounds for cruel and inhuman treatment. So it seems the court agreed that he was abusive even if as Ivana herself says it wasn't "criminal" rape.

OP here. Yes, in some of the accounts I read today, there were allusions to other instances of physical abuse. The divorce documents are sealed so we can't know for sure.

Anonymous wrote:
We are using the same reasons people do not believe Tara Reade. Why is that different?

Like posted above, if Reade changing the story means it didn’t happen, same with Ivana. You can’t have it both ways. You have listed 2 people and both of them can not pass the test people are demanding for Tara Reade. Seems fair.

Unfortunately for you, it makes complete sense to contrast Ivana Trump with Reade.

Why did Ivana change her story? Ivana stood to lose $25 million if she continued to talk about the rape post-divorce in the same way she talked about it pre-divorce. Trump actually tried to sue her over this in 1992. So it's pretty clear Trump was desperate to stop her from telling her pre-divorce version of the rape.

Why did Reade change her story, going from praising Biden's work on women, to accusing him of shoulder massages, to accusing him of rape? It's a lot harder to explain this. Some have suggested that people deal with trauma differently; others find it implausible that 25 years after the event, Reade was still praising Biden. Plus in Reade's case there are so many other conflicting elements--the alibis that don't pan out, the history of grifting.

On other point to keep in mind, the divorce was granted on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. In New York, that typically means he was regularly physically abusive or threatening to the point of creating real fear. The rape accusation was used to help establish the grounds for cruel and inhuman treatment. So it seems the court agreed that he was abusive even if as Ivana herself says it wasn't "criminal" rape.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well yes, yes, it is about money. Trump himself made it about money when he sued Ivana in 1992 to invalidate the divorce settlement and take $25 million from her. He sued her on the grounds that she violated the gag order that you guys claim doesn’t exist.

TL;DR: if Ivana talked about being raped, she would have lost $25,000,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we can count you as a yes on raping Ivana, here defined as unwanted non-loving sex that doesn't violate my NDA?

Nope. I believe Ivana when SHE said he did not rape her.

Ok, so then PPs were correct, so far. Two accusations against a Republican, neither happened. An accusation against a Democrat, we MUST believe it. I understand we have 23 more accusations to go through. I'll let you figure out a reason not to believe each one. Should be interesting.

We are using the same reasons people do not believe Tara Reade. Why is that different?

Like posted above, if Reade changing the story means it didn’t happen, same with Ivana. You can’t have it both ways. You have listed 2 people and both of them can not pass the test people are demanding for Tara Reade. Seems fair.

DP. We know why Ivana changed her story pre- and post-divorce. There’s a very obvious reason—the gag clause in the divorce settlement. Reade’s story changed multiple times, and her brothers and friends changed their stories, yet we don’t have an obvious reason. Do you see the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why is it that Cons can’t argue without ad hominems? You should know you look like nitwits yourself when you do this. Also, in the future, do try to use phrases like “try to make fetch happen” in contexts where they actually make sense.

So tell us: why did Trump sue Ivana in 1992 for violating the gag clause of their divorce settlement, if there was no gag clause? Apparently Trump argued that her violation of this “non-existent” gag clause invalidated their whole divorce settlement and he wanted his $25M back.

How is this possible if there is no gag clause?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ivana Trump, in a statement offered by Donald Trump’s lawyers.

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?

+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.

She was obviously threatened by Trump’s lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we can count you as a yes on raping Ivana, here defined as unwanted non-loving sex that doesn't violate my NDA?

Nope. I believe Ivana when SHE said he did not rape her.

Ok, so then PPs were correct, so far. Two accusations against a Republican, neither happened. An accusation against a Democrat, we MUST believe it. I understand we have 23 more accusations to go through. I'll let you figure out a reason not to believe each one. Should be interesting.

We are using the same reasons people do not believe Tara Reade. Why is that different?

Like posted above, if Reade changing the story means it didn’t happen, same with Ivana. You can’t have it both ways. You have listed 2 people and both of them can not pass the test people are demanding for Tara Reade. Seems fair.

I mostly don't use any of those tests and I observe that 90% of people in both parties use the partisan affiliation test without realizing it.

When I'm assessing someone's credibility, I use all of those questions more. If someone does change their story, I don't stop there, I ask why. Sometimes the explanation is satisfactory, sometimes not.

This is what juries do. They assess people's credibility. They get no instructions from the judge about it because there is no definable standard for deciding the truth of a witness' statement. We just use our own best judgements and whatever tests we can sift from the evidence.

In this case, we are all the jury. You can believe all the witnesses, some, or none. But if your biggest concern is that the other jurors are doing it wrong, then you aren't doing your job and you should just recuse yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we can count you as a yes on raping Ivana, here defined as unwanted non-loving sex that doesn't violate my NDA?

Nope. I believe Ivana when SHE said he did not rape her.

Ok, so then PPs were correct, so far. Two accusations against a Republican, neither happened. An accusation against a Democrat, we MUST believe it. I understand we have 23 more accusations to go through. I'll let you figure out a reason not to believe each one. Should be interesting.

We are using the same reasons people do not believe Tara Reade. Why is that different?

Like posted above, if Reade changing the story means it didn’t happen, same with Ivana. You can’t have it both ways. You have listed 2 people and both of them can not pass the test people are demanding for Tara Reade. Seems fair.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s a gag order in place keeping her from saying anything.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Um, yes there is.
“NEW YORK (AP) _ Ivana Trump’s appeal to lift her gag order was turned down without comment by the state’s highest court Wednesday, leaving in place the prohibition against her talking about her 14-year marriage to Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, the appellate division of the state Supreme Court voted 5-0 to reaffirm its April 16 decision upholding the confidentiality clause Mrs. Trump signed at the time of the couple’s March 22 divorce.”
https://apnews.com/2651dbcc5f9122231bc489a7907287a9

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we can count you as a yes on raping Ivana, here defined as unwanted non-loving sex that doesn't violate my NDA?

Nope. I believe Ivana when SHE said he did not rape her.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So we can count you as a yes on raping Ivana, here defined as unwanted non-loving sex that doesn't violate my NDA?