• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Writer claims Trump raped her

ecco

Veteran Member
She can say anything she wants, and Democrats will believe her.

Shoot, they'd believe her if she claimed that Trump had descended upon her in the shape of a swan, and that she laid eggs nine months later, resulting in Helen, Clytemnestra, Castor and Pollux. Helen is also known, nowadays, as Gal Godot....

ANYway....the gullibility of the Democrats when they hear something that could possibly be negative about Trump is legendarily obvious.
Not all. I'm a long time progressive liberal Democrat. Here is my post #34.
  • I thoroughly despise Donald Trump
  • I hate the concept that an accusation is considered evidence
  • I distrust any adult who doesn't report a crime and only years later speaks up
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Wow. You have lawyers in the family? Good for you. Since you’ve turned this into a pissing contest I’ll tell you I’m an attorney at one of the largest firms in the country. About one-third of my work involves abuse cases. You want to keep trying to tell me how this will or will not play out?

OK, be honest with me here.

A woman comes into your office. She is about to publish her memoirs. In them (and in interviews about the book) she claims that three decades ago the president of the United States raped her. She didn't report it at the time. She didn't report it to anybody when he first ran for office. There is absolutely no evidence at all for her claim; no video of the two seen together in the store, no video of the event, no witnesses. All there is, is her claim that he did this. He says he doesn't know her and has never met her, and the only thing you have to THAT is a photo of him standing, with a companion, talking (a receiving line?) to her and her husband. A quick snapshot. That's it.

Other than that, it is very much a he said/she said...and there is absolutely no forensic evidence to support her claim. No witnesses. Nothing...and she very much wants to sell her book.

Would you take that case, knowing that 'contingency' means that all expenses will come out of your pocket, and only if you win the case would you get any money?

Of course, there IS the sheer publicity; it would put your name in front of everybody, and that might well be worth the money. Mind you, that hasn't done Michael Avenatti much good.

OK, let's erase the "President of the United STates" part out. Suppose that the scenario is the same, only the accused person is NOT the President of the US. Suppose he's just Joe Schmo from Idaho, potato farmer. Nobody cares about electing him to anything, and nobody wants to get him fired. Same claim, same utter lack of evidence; it's just that THIS potato farmer just won the lottery and is suddenly a great deal wealthier than he was last month.

Would you take the case then? Perhaps figuring that Joe would hand over money just to get rid of you? I do know lawyers who do that...aren't those called 'nuisance law suits?" or perhaps 'extortion?" Those are actually illegal in California, for all the good laws against them do.

What if Joe Schmo hadn't won the lottery, and he was, well....broke and nobody knows him, or cares? Would you take the case then?

Or would you only take this hopeless and completely unsupported case if the accused is wealthy, powerful, and probably willing to pay in order to get rid of you, or your name wouldn't be put in the papers and social media all over the place?

If the only thing you were going to get out of it was a bunch of bills that you would have to pay, and a complete waste of your time, would you take it?

Never mind. I already know that answer.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Who and where is this "y'all" that still defends Clinton? I haven't seen it.

Oh, I have. I haven't met a Democrat yet who didn't excuse him, defend him....or say that what Clinton did is utterly irrelevant. They are right; what HE did is irrelevant. It's what the Democrats did about it at the time that is relevant.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
OK, be honest with me here.

A woman comes into your office. She is about to publish her memoirs. In them (and in interviews about the book) she claims that three decades ago the president of the United States raped her. She didn't report it at the time. She didn't report it to anybody when he first ran for office. There is absolutely no evidence at all for her claim; no video of the two seen together in the store, no video of the event, no witnesses. All there is, is her claim that he did this. He says he doesn't know her and has never met her, and the only thing you have to THAT is a photo of him standing, with a companion, talking (a receiving line?) to her and her husband. A quick snapshot. That's it.

Other than that, it is very much a he said/she said...and there is absolutely no forensic evidence to support her claim. No witnesses. Nothing...and she very much wants to sell her book.

Would you take that case, knowing that 'contingency' means that all expenses will come out of your pocket, and only if you win the case would you get any money?

Of course, there IS the sheer publicity; it would put your name in front of everybody, and that might well be worth the money. Mind you, that hasn't done Michael Avenatti much good.

OK, let's erase the "President of the United STates" part out. Suppose that the scenario is the same, only the accused person is NOT the President of the US. Suppose he's just Joe Schmo from Idaho, potato farmer. Nobody cares about electing him to anything, and nobody wants to get him fired. Same claim, same utter lack of evidence; it's just that THIS potato farmer just won the lottery and is suddenly a great deal wealthier than he was last month.

Would you take the case then? Perhaps figuring that Joe would hand over money just to get rid of you? I do know lawyers who do that...aren't those called 'nuisance law suits?" or perhaps 'extortion?" Those are actually illegal in California, for all the good laws against them do.

What if Joe Schmo hadn't won the lottery, and he was, well....broke and nobody knows him, or cares? Would you take the case then?

Or would you only take this hopeless and completely unsupported case if the accused is wealthy, powerful, and probably willing to pay in order to get rid of you, or your name wouldn't be put in the papers and social media all over the place?

If the only thing you were going to get out of it was a bunch of bills that you would have to pay, and a complete waste of your time, would you take it?

Never mind. I already know that answer.
You’re wasting your time. You don’t know if she saw a lawyer and if so what was said. You’re just making **** up to fit your preconceived notions.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Oh, I have. I haven't met a Democrat yet who didn't excuse him, defend him....or say that what Clinton did is utterly irrelevant. They are right; what HE did is irrelevant. It's what the Democrats did about it at the time that is relevant.

Maybe you hang around a lot more democrats than I do. :shrug:
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Remember before you claim that this is nothing more than a he said/she said that there are at least another 24 women who have accused Trump of sexual assault.

So it is a he said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said and she said.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I haven't met a Democrat yet who didn't excuse him, defend him.

Good afternoon dianaiad. Allow me to introduce myself. I go by the name of ecco.

I am a liberal progressive Democrat and I don't excuse Bill Clinton for what he did and I have never defended him for doing it.

There, now you can longer claim that you haven't met a Democrat "who didn't excuse him, defend him."
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Good afternoon dianaiad. Allow me to introduce myself. I go by the name of ecco.

I am a liberal progressive Democrat and I don't excuse Bill Clinton for what he did and I have never defended him for doing it.

There, now you can longer claim that you haven't met a Democrat "who didn't excuse him, defend him."
Did you vote for him the first time and/or the second time?
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
No choice. I live in California.
Which county and how did you vote? No need to answer if you choose not to do so. Unlike others here, I won't harass you. I'm just curious.

ca_2016.png
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Your quoting Donald Trump's locker room trash talk to one of his showbiz buddies long ago before Trump became a better person, didn't make me vomit, but let's just say I wasn't too pleased about that.

Franklin Graham Wants You To Know Trump Is A Changed Man

Franklin Graham Wants You to Know Trump Is a Changed Man (but Let's Hope His Remaining Years Are Moral)
Ever notice it's always Trumpette apologists claiming "Trump is a changed man", never Trump himself?
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Your quoting Donald Trump's locker room trash talk to one of his showbiz buddies long ago before Trump became a better person, didn't make me vomit, but let's just say I wasn't too pleased about that.

Franklin Graham Wants You To Know Trump Is A Changed Man

Franklin Graham Wants You to Know Trump Is a Changed Man (but Let's Hope His Remaining Years Are Moral)
Franklin Graham Wants You to Know Trump Is a Changed Man (but Let's Hope His Remaining Years Are Moral)

“Donald Trump is a hateful, power-hungry, selfish and egotistical man. He has a long history of immoral and abusive language and behavior. He still displays that today,”

Good article.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Franklin Graham Wants You to Know Trump Is a Changed Man (but Let's Hope His Remaining Years Are Moral)

“Donald Trump is a hateful, power-hungry, selfish and egotistical man. He has a long history of immoral and abusive language and behavior. He still displays that today,”

Good article.

Changed from what?

The article is from 18 months ago. He's recently toned down his vulgar and abusive language, and he's more concerned about all human life as evident when he called off the lethal airstrike against Iran on Thursday.
 
Last edited:
Top