A Third Woman Alleges She was Sexually Assaulted by Donald Trump

[tytlyf]

Roger and Trump are in a race to the bottom with these allegations.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, I already knew about the stories of his sexual abuse of women. I was suspicious of his friendship with the billionaire child sex pimp, Epstein, so that's sadly unsurprising. Very sad.

 

[YmirGF]

I wouldn't be able to say he was guilty, but I'd still have suspicions given that this is not the first sexual assault allegation against him and given his personality and attitude.

It'd be an achievement if this case got laughed out of court, though. I mean, there would only be 9,999 items left on his "Disgraceful and Lunatic Track Record" list.

And that is the huge problem with sexual allegations. People will remember the allegation long after they will remember how a given case turned out or if the person is exonerated. Proving rape, years later, would not be easy, but the charge doesn't have to stick as the damage is already done.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And that is the huge problem with sexual allegations. People will remember the allegation long after they will remember how a given case turned out or if the person is exonerated. Proving rape, years later, would not be easy, but the charge doesn't have to stick as the damage is already done.

Sexual assault allegations are indeed a very thorny issue. Not only are they sometimes very difficult to prove, but they could also damage someone's reputation for life even if he or she were actually innocent and the charges were false.

 

[YmirGF]

Sexual assault allegations are indeed a very thorny issue. Not only are they sometimes very difficult to prove, but they could also damage someone's reputation for life even if he or she were actually innocent and the charges were false.

I hear you, DS, I really do. This whole "incident" just smells like part of the massive effort to smear Trump in any way possible.

Really, can his alleged exploits as a Necrophiliac be far behind?
Or his penchant for life-size plushy toys in naughty lingerie?
Or a former male prostitute who came to Trump over an alleged job offer?

 

[columbus]

This whole "incident" just smells like part of the massive effort to smear Trump in any way possible.

This.
I am nobody's Trump fan. But I can't see much merit in claims this old at this time.

Tom

 

[Skwim]

I hear you, DS, I really do. This whole "incident" just smells like part of the massive effort to smear Trump in any way possible.

Did you not read the linked OP article either?[/QUOTE]

Read...... the..... story. It concludes by revealing that:

Harth dropped her lawsuit a few weeks after it was filed. The Guardian notes that around the same time, Houraney and Trump settled a business dispute for an undisclosed amount. She says she and Trump were on shakily “friendly” terms after that, and that she wanted to move on, which is why she remained quiet for two decades. That changed, Harth says, after the launch of Trump’s presidential campaign when press outlets dug up the old complaint and Trump responded by calling her a liar. She also says she has voicemails documenting calls from Trump’s office asking her to recant her allegations following the New York Times article.

But Harth says “the topper” that motivated her to speak publicly was when Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, stated on CBS This Morning in March that her father was “not a groper.” Harth says taken together, Trump and Ivanka’s discrediting remarks have negatively impacted her life and her business.

“He didn’t have to say anything. For once, he should have closed his mouth. He didn’t have to comment. We were on great—not great, I’ll take that back—we were on good terms, friendly terms. He didn’t—he started this. What is happening now is of his own making, OK? I was quiet.”​

 

[YmirGF]

Did you not read the linked OP article either?

Yeah, yeah. I get that, Skwim. I have very good reading comprehension.
What else can she say though? She has no choice but to admit she lying or double-down and triple-down on her version of events, the truth of which will likely never be known.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Sexual assault allegations are indeed a very thorny issue. Not only are they sometimes very difficult to prove, but they could also damage someone's reputation for life even if he or she were actually innocent and the charges were false.

Yep, for example very sad case with Cliff Richard, whose house was broken into by the police (who had the media in tow right behind them) and really traumatised him, not to mention damaging his reputation as the media then amplified the witchhunt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36546038

Now that the police have dropped it with insufficient evidence, he may be innocent, but many people, me included, would always have in the back of our heads somewhere, "Maybe he really did do it?"

Horrible.

 

[Acim]

These allegations do not bode well for Trump.
But IMO, they don't bode well for Hillary either, given what Clintons have dealt with, but never truly fully addressed, leading to perjury while Bill was in office.
Obviously, Clintons just need to be as far removed as possible from allegations against Trump and hope Trump operatives fail in turning the allegations of 'sexual misconduct' squarely back on the Clintons.

I am arguing that Donald committed worse sexual assaults than did Hillary.

You are trying to argue that Hillary is responsible for the actions of Bill.

I find the first item hard to argue against, but does presume Trump is guilty of sexual assault, while Hillary is obviously innocent of them. With those assumptions in place, it seems like a no brainer (Donald is worse).

I don't find the 2nd one hard to argue for. Not that she alone is responsible, but that her enabling it and possibly going after women made it easier for Bill to maintain his type of behavior, thus indirectly responsible for the actions, sharing in responsibility for the behavior. A deal that would, or as present times currently show, benefit Hillary. Bill agrees to not hassle her with his insatiable appetite for sex AND to let her have lots of political access, while she agrees to allow him infidelities and if fully willing to grant political access, she will make sure any accuser of him are dealt with by her and any operatives she wishes to employ to smear them publicly.

That we have allegations of women, who have claimed to be sexually assaulted by Bill, whereby they said Hillary confronted them and sought to shut them up, doesn't bode well for Hillary. That Hillary has chosen to stay with what I think everyone acknowledge is a sexual predator doesn't bode well for Hillary. That it has obviously benefited her politically, does (or doesn't) bode well for Hillary, depending on your perspective of Hillary. Likely depends on own partisanship.

Which is how one can possibly see why someone might not treat Trump as undeniably guilty, when viewed through the partisan prism foremost. For surely, through same prism, but from the 'other side' he is undeniably guilty. Just as Hillary is undeniably guilty of intimidating women who Bill sexually assaulted, and did so in a way to benefit her marriage to Bill, which benefits her politically.

I do think there is a (very good/strong) argument to make for the idea that enabling sexual wrongdoing in an ongoing way is worse than individual acts of sexual misconduct. I'm not saying it's a 100% solid argument that won't be met with vehement and very strong rebuttal, but am saying it is an argument to be had, especially as that is essentially what is butting heads in this election, among 5000 other topics up for consideration.

The morally righteous would say neither candidate ought to be allowed any position near presidency, if any or all sexual/enabling allegations are accurate. One would very much hope those morally righteous have zero wrongdoings themselves and can survive allegations that may be false, but once brought forth to the public, would for sure plant seed of doubt about just how righteous they actually are.

 

[fantome profane]

but does presume Trump is guilty of sexual assault

Fair enough. But let me ask this. If Donald is guilty, would that make Ivanka also guilty? She has defended Donald, possibly making it possible for him to continue to rape (again if he did it).

 

[Acim]

Fair enough. But let me ask this. If Donald is guilty, would that make Ivanka also guilty? She has defended Donald, possibly making it possible for him to continue to rape (again if he did it).

Depends on what Ivanka actually knows. With Hillary, I think she learned fairly soon what Bill was and made a deal. Ivanka may not know, and is in essence guilty in the same way all of us are guilty of enabling sexual misconduct. Takes a special kind to make active deals with people who are engaged in ongoing sexual assault, and find way that could benefit them personally. With family, it's hard to get away from the relationship with that person. With marriage, it would be pretty easy, one would think.

 

[Revoltingest]

This.
I am nobody's Trump fan. But I can't see much merit in claims this old at this time.

Tom

If legit, I find'm troublesome.
But claims never adjudicated are difficult to judge.
When occurring with the number & consistency of Bill Cosby's, I'll say with certainty there is fire where there is that much smoke.

 

[Nietzsche]

Fascists never see anything wrong with Trump because he is their Fuhrer!!

Fuehrer. If you can't use the ü, the least you can do is properly anglicize your hyperbole.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Fuehrer. If you can't use the ü, the least you can do is properly anglicize your hyperbole.

Pedant!

(Though I like your rightful identification of hyperbole. )

 

[Lyndon]

Fuehrer. If you can't use the ü, the least you can do is properly anglicize your hyperbole.

I did it right, its just that the umlaut doesn't show up on your computer!! You might want to have it checked......

 

[Nietzsche]

I did it right, its just that the umlaut doesn't show up on your computer!! You might want to have it checked......

Clearly not, because I can type it. ü.

If you cannot use the U-umlaut, you add an E after the U.

It is not Fuhrer, it is Fuehrer. Get your terms of slander right.

 

[Lyndon]

Somebody cares a lot more about Fuhrer than I do, in fact you're making a furor out of it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Somebody cares a lot more about Fuhrer than I do, in fact you're making a furor out of it.

Don't you mean füror?

 

[Cassandra]

Relevance is a tricky thing.
We have 2 candidates competing for the presidency.
Both are damaged goods.
Let's assume The Donald is a serial sexual predator.
How does this compare with The Hildabeast's enabling of Bill's even greater appetite for the same?
I still say what matters most is the likely effect we'd expect each to have in office.

Forgive me, I am not from the US so, I do not understand the local morals.

Do you seriously want to tell that a women who is victim of her husbands indiscretions and put up with them like a good loyal wife, is considered in the US on par with a sexual predator?