The attempt to revive a sexual assault case against Trump
Commenter “TR” has a question:
Does anyone think that the rape lawsuit against, by Ms. E. Jean Carroll, will succeed?…
…[S]he’s starting a lawsuit against Donald Trump, accusing him of- convincing her to go into a store, a store that just had him in it, and she also accuses him of raping her in that store.
I’m really puzzled as to why this case can go to court since:
1] she seems to be a VERY pro-feminist writer, who has a serious dislike of most men, 2] she doesn’t sound like someone who would be around men she doesn’t know at all, like Trump, because of the violence done to her in the past, and 3] She doesn’t sound like someone who would say to herself: I think it is OK to go into a store or building…,with nobody and no clerks in it…, and go into a dressing room with a man I don’t know…, AND this man is called by many reporters: a rich, powerful, greedy, bullying, white man. Would she really go into a building with someone, or into a room with someone, in these situations? Would she really trust a person + go with him, with all of these red flags on this event?Do you think that the courts will find him guilty…?
This is only one of many many attempts to destroy Trump through lawfare, and if it fails it will not be the last. Without knowing more details of the case it’s impossible to answer, but even with details it would be impossible to answer. The outcome rests on judge and/or jury (if it’s a jury case), as well as on elements of the law in the state of New York with which I’m almost certainly unfamiliar.
However, I can’t even imagine finding a jury in New York (or perhaps even elsewhere) that is objective.
I have written briefly here about Ms. Carroll’s claims back in June of 2019, around the time they were first aired. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996, so that’s one problem right there: lack of specificity can cast doubt on credibility. Of course, there is also the age of the charges and the fact that they were brought up almost 25 years later, and when the accused was president of the US.
Carroll is a long-time advice columnist for Elle magazine who first made the accusations in a memoir featured in New York magazine. That only solidifies the suspicion that this was done for political reasons and for personal publicity to help sell her book. I don’t know enough about the law in New York to know whether that sort of evidence would be allowed, however. She is also suing Trump for defamation because after the accusations were made public he said she was a liar and also not his type. This type of defamation charge for saying that accusers are liars has become a not-uncommon tactic of women making such accusations against public figures these days.
There are people, and probably even judges, who believe Trump is evil incarnate or at least politically dangerous and who would convict him of raping aliens on the moon if it would serve the cause of stopping him from ever holding a position of power again, and/or of bankrupting him and his family. So even though these charges would probably not even be brought if they weren’t against a public figure like Trump, it is certainly possible he would be found guilty. They are not criminal charges, however – which in a way is an advantage to his accuser because the standard of proof is much lower than in a criminal case.
How is Carroll able to bring charges for such an act that is alleged to have occurred so long ago? Simple. The law in New York was amended recently and she filed as soon as the new law became operative:
The New York Adult Survivors Act gives women a one-year window starting Thursday to file a complaint against an alleged attacker and other responsible parties for incidents of sexual assault perpetrated at any point in their adult lives, starting at 18, within the state of New York.
One notable lawsuit already filed under the new law is against former President Donald Trump.
If you’ve followed my writing on the subject of sexual assault allegations, you’ll see that I believe the standard of proof should be high in order to protect from the very real problem of false allegations. It is just too easy to make them, and in the case of public figures much too rewarding. In the past, some sort of shame might have attached to victims’ coming forward that might have discouraged such false allegations at least somewhat, but that’s long gone. Was this law designed to allow this particular lawsuit against Trump? Let’s just say that Carroll had already made the accusations and had been barred by the statute of limitations from bringing suit prior to the law’s passage, and so it’s certainly possible that getting Trump was one of the goals of the law, although probably unstated.
NOTE: See this. It will give you a glimpse into the mind and motives of Carroll, a rather chilling sight.
The lawfare will continue as long as necessary, by any means which the Democrats can muster (as they are well aware of the vast power in the hands of their very own Ministry of Propaganda, aka the MSM, even more influential now that the Murdoch empire has turned against Trump), nor is it easy to regard the claims of the former cheerleader as anything other than preposterously (and very ideologically) fabricated.
Hard to know what to make of Ms. Carroll’s essay. But her admission (boast?) that she doesn’t eat meat strikes me as shorthand of sorts for a whole suite of the usual leftist boutique beliefs. Her writing caters to a certain upper Manhattan readership who she knows find this stuff to be like catnip.
Those intent upon taking Trump’s scalp are too blind to see what they would reap if successful in making of him a martyr.
I couldn’t get through Ms. Carroll’s twisted screed. She’s a real piece of work.
Backing off to a more distant perspective: Is there a situation in which men can accuse women of something which happened long ago and which has no current evidence available and which automatically generates sympathy irrespective of the actual facts, if any?
I’d rather there were not, but if guys as a bunch decide we need some balance and possibly a threat hanging out there just in case, what would it be?
Okay, we heard your accusation. Now deal with THIS.
Scary possibility.
Geoffrey Britain,
I agree. She is one of the most self-absorbed people I’ve ever read.
I never had those kinds of problems with guys. I was more interested in them as people-not as sex objects.Shared interests were important.
She in competition with Mia Farrow and Kristine Blasely Ford?
Not to mention every single woman who murdered her “abusive” husband.
E. Jean Carroll is the psychopath that likes to practice archery using targets made with photos of people she dislikes. She’s even trained children to do the same. Can you imagine how the media would treat someone that used images of AOC for target practice?
Can you imagine how the media would treat someone that used images of AOC for target practice?
Or for pin-the-tail-on-the-Donkey?
you notice how the list of epstein’s victims, seems to be trapped on the sill with funk and wagnalls pickle jar, yet stormy daniels and this superannuated gal, (you see how diplomatic I can be) seems to flood the airwaves,
She cribbed it off a Law & Order episode aired in 2012.
Carroll has one advantage over Christine Blasey Ford. There is photographic evidence that she and her husband once met Donald and Melania Trump on a receiving line.
Art Deco:
About the Law and Order episode, it’s a bit tenuous in that although such a thing was mentioned on the show, it wasn’t the plot and it was a brief mention.. See this.
New York and California are in a run off to be The State of Evil, aren’t they?
Gosh, wonder if Michael Avenatti’s available?…(to inject the necessary levity…).
Democrats are evil. They gladly and wholeheartedly prove it every day. It’s not possible to be a good, decent, moral person and support this relentless persecution of Trump. This isn’t arguable.
How can anyone respect a human being who supports this? I realize that we have to be mindful of our capacity to be wrong. But I also know that some rational, logical argument needs to be made to support a position. The relentless jihad against Trump doesn’t have one. Not even a tiny shred of a pretense of an argument. This is blatantly dishonest and an assault on the rule of law.
Imagine how your favorite liberal would respond if Hillary Clinton had been treated like this? And the evidence of criminality against Hillary is a hundred times greater.
To even pretend to be moral a person has to be able to see the possibility of circumstances being reversed. Is there a liberal in America capable of being such a moral person? I haven’t seen any evidence that such a liberal exists.
And now for something crass (but true).
Have a gander at a period photo of her. She was 53 years old at the time and her principal asset was that she hadn’t put on weight with age. Have a look at period photographs of Ivana Trump and Marla Maples. DJT wouldn’t have given her a second look.
I never had those kinds of problems with guys.
The smart money says neither did she. Half of it is outright fiction and half of it is offloading the responsibility for her own conduct on the nearest man.
Here is one of the quotes which open a learned, timely, and very worth while essay by Roger Kimball on the great moral divide at which we in the West now stand–
“Day by day, month by month, doubt by doubt, law and order became fascism; education, constraint; work, alienation; revolution, mere sport; leisure, a privilege of class; marijuana, a harmless weed; family, a stifling hothouse; affluence, oppression; success, a social disease; sex, an innocent pastime; youth, a permanent tribunal; maturity, the new senility; discipline, an attack on personality; Christianity . . . and the West . . . and white skin.”
—Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints”
See Kimball’s essay at https://amgreatness.com/2022/11/25/highways-to-utopia/
Snow,
That is a phenomenal article.
Thanks very much for the link…
Don’t be surprised if that lying SOB , Christine Blasey Ford will also claim she was assaulted by Trump.
Why do I think those folks who financially, legally and financially created the Ford hoax scam, are behind Carroll’s ploy to destroy Trump?
Is it possible that the Ford accusation hoax was the template for the Trump -Russia hoax?
The internet says Carroll was born in 1943. She is almost as old as Trump. The alleged assault happened when? In the 1980’s? She would have been in her late 30’s? How could she avail herself of this NY “Adult Survivors” law when at any relevant time (say from 1965 onward) she was not a child victimized by an adult and too traumatized to seek legal redress. No: she was one adult allegedly assaulted by another adult and perfectly competent under the law to call the police or sue him for civil wrongs.
The whole thing smells to high heaven.
The alleged incident was in 1995 or so, she claims. It sounds preposterous to me, nor, as far as I can tell, does she have any corroborating testimony or evidence that she was assaulted by this man in the stated location. Total lack of corroborating evidence, of course, didn’t stop lots of people from believing an unprovable story about Brett Kavanaugh.
we still don’t have a list of epstein’s victims, not his enablers, the organs apparently act like the hunter biden tablet, don’t exist and that danchenko was not pulling our leg,
Art Deco:
I agree that her claims are almost certainly bogus.
However, the idea that she’s not attractive enough to be raped is an absurdity. That’s not the way rape works in the minds of many rapists. If Trump were the rapist type (and I don’t think he is), the fact that she’s not as attractive as his own wife would almost certainly not be relevant.
stan:
Re your comment at 8:52 AM–
I’ve spent thousands and thousands of words in answer to the same question you raised, and of course the point is quite arguable. The vast majority of Democratic voters are not evil at all. The same cannot be said of many of the leaders, however. Most Democrat voters are the recipients of very clever propaganda that has caused them to believe that Trump is evil and that they and the Democrats are fighting evil. And many don’t follow the news all that closely. They are also surrounded by people who reinforce those beliefs.
You write:
Some see the possibility, but are given reasons to believe that there are great differences that negate the comparison, or that the charges against their person are bogus lies. And I see the same phenomenon on the right, by the way. Very very few people on either side apply the same standards to BOTH sides – very very few. I believe I am one of those people, and that’s why I don’t jump on certain bandwagons (such as believing last-minute sexual charges against Democrats but not against Republicans – I have the same attitude towards both).
As far as liberals who see that possibility – of course there are some. Some end up becoming Independents or even Republicans. And some don’t, such as Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley.
no the borrowed the scenario from a relatively less known british spy novelist, who once had secret service ties, alex dryden, in red to black, the target was a luxenberg industrialist, who was being blackmailed,
How does the expression go? “The process is the punishment”?
And since the Democrats are ABLE to punish; and since they are the types of people who for whatever reason or combination of reasons—evil, fear, insecurity, vindictiveness, nastiness, brutishness, arrogance, lovers of intimidation and bullying, endlessly power-hungry, corrupt, AUTHORITARIAN—WILL punish, then they will.
It’s become a game for them. A game of cat and mouse. Because they have a whole S**LOAD of things they know they MUST cover up.
And they’ll do whatever it takes to keep all that ordure covered up. (Taking total power in perpetuity DOES help in that regard…and for all I know, that’s the ONLY reason they feel they need all this power. All this power perpetually. IOW, their studied lack of transparency makes them absurdly—criminally—transparent.)
Though (once again) as the expression goes, “They’re doing it for the good of all, for the betterment of society, for the sake of the country, to save the planet…”, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Watch out for bastards spouting boilerplate platitudinous “Ethically Altruistic”(TM) garbage.
yes it’s been a dozen years?? since steyn went to court against michael mann, for a paraphrase of someone elses statement, of course national review, abandoned him pretty quickly, tim ball was eventually able to recover,
Should be “…—WHO WILL punish, then they will.”
close enough, gotham is just such a festering dumpsterfire, with fat alvin and black abe beame, there was just enough outrage we are told to flip four house seats not not enough to kick hochul back to her cauldron,
we see another exampled with engelbrecht and phillips who were targeted by a hack judge, because they spoke truth about konnech and gene yu, and days later, they drop the charges,
The internet says Carroll was born in 1943. She is almost as old as Trump.
Older than Trump. Almost as old as Biden.
It’s extremely unlikely that it happened. If she did have sex with anyone in a dressing room, how do we know it wasn’t consensual? She’s blurred the lines between fiction and fact before in her book about Hunter S. Thompson. What’s there to stop her from doing it again.
Carroll’s interview with Anderson Cooper where she said that most people think that rape and rape fantasies were sexy also makes me skeptical of her story. Cooper was befuddled and had to cut to a commercial at the that point. She also told the New York Times that she didn’t consider herself raped or a victim. Her attorneys have but a photo of the dress (or the dress itself) into evidence, but when she had been asked earlier to produce the dress for DNA testing, she twice refused.
Her article begins,
My first rich boy pulled down my underpants. My last rich boy pulled down my tights. My first rich boy — I had fixed my eyes on his face long enough to know — was beautiful, with dark gray eyes and long golden-brown hair across his forehead. I don’t know what he grew up to be. My last rich boy was blond. He grew up to be the president of the United States.
But she puts the alleged Trump incident in 1995 or 1996 and she says her article about Les Moonves (with whom there was also an incident) was published in 1997. Did she the article have to wait a year to be published, or was Trump not really her “last rich boy.” Is that just sloppy composition dictated by the arc of her book or a sign of something more?
She writes:
Early one evening, as I am about to go out Bergdorf’s revolving door on 58th Street, and one of New York’s most famous men comes in the revolving door, or it could have been a regular door at that time, I can’t recall, and he says: “Hey, you’re that advice lady!”
And I say to No. 20 on the Most Hideous Men of My Life List: “Hey, you’re that real-estate tycoon!”
The “meet cute”. It’s quite a tribute to her that in her version Trump remembered her so well. I suspect he was more likely to say “Hey, don’t I know you from somewhere?” or just looked at her like he was trying to figure out if they’d met before.
Apologies for not checking dates and ages, which make this complainant even less sympathetic. How many of us in our 50’s are going to be waltzed by some stranger into a stall at Bloomingdale’s without consent or outcry then or for DECADES later? And not just a stranger but a stinking rich stranger who very likely would have had his minions pay us well to go away? Or in the alternative have promised a world of hurt if we did not take the payoff?
As before: this stinks to high heaven.
Let me suggest that a better version of the NY law enabling putative victims (typically women) to leap the statutory bar on stale claims, would have imposed on them a “loser pays” rule for cases they chose to pursue.
“… a sign of something more?”
A sign she makes everything up. Not just about Trump. Her “journalistic” guideline is “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”. A lot of that going around these days.
Let me apologize further: I had not understood that this new law had only now taken effect. We can expect a tsunami of litigation as claimants both serious and speculative and utterly meritless throw their hats into the ring. Wow.
I can barely start to guess what might emerge, but here’s a start:
(1) free-for-all as every wannabe and deserving plaintiff rushes to figure the merits and probabilities of a claim (imagine the frantic calls to old friends, “Don’t you remember how I came home so upset that night after my date with Umpty Bumpty?”)
(2) complementary free-for-all as lawyers sort out the likeliest claims
(3) jammed calendars as cases get filed: take a number, you will be heard about a decade hence
(4) amazing efforts to reconstruct What Really Happened That Night and, in the absence of competent evidence, amazing new theories of liability (Plaintiff: “I felt really really uncomfortable, I really did. I can feel it again now, just by talking about it. If you doubt me, you are making it worse!” Court to Jury: “You will take this declaration as established fact that the plaintiff was threatened…”)
(5) Etc. Pass the popcorn.
the idea that she’s not attractive enough to be raped is an absurdity.
That’s nice. That was not my idea, but yours.
My contention is that Trump would show no interest in her. We know in who he has shown interest, and it’s not dames who look like her.
Art Deco:
You fail to understand a very basic thing. The question is not whetherTrump had an affair with her, which case her attractiveness and his sexual interest in her would be relevant.
A rapist – which I have made it clear I don’t think Trump is, but “rapist” is the allegation we are discussing here – functions very differently. You don’t seem to understand the distinction.
I read Carroll’s account, and she implies that she was regularly a victim of assaults from men from a very young age.
If we believe this, then was she unfortunately a magnet for this sort of thing, or was this not out of the norm for women her age? As I’m younger than she by thirty years or so I hesitate to say this couldn’t be true. I’d be curious to know what the women who post here would say.
I do know from reading history that there were times when few women could have expected to be safe from men. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he describes regularly preying* on nearly any woman alone with him, unless they are of high social status. And while he is anxious about his wife finding out, he does not seem to worry about other men** finding out, suggesting that his behavior was not an outlier for his time and place.
*His activities run the spectrum from fully consensual to coercive to rape.
**Some of these women had husbands, brothers, or fathers but as they were of low status he could buy them off, threaten their livelihoods, etc. He did not seem to worry about his peers knowing about what he was doing.
As you have described it, this sounds like a civil lawsuit for damages, not a criminal case. If so, it will be hard to get the case dismissed bfore trial. Under the rules of civil procedure in every state I am aware of the case cannot be dismissed simply because the accuser and her story do not seem credible. It can only be dismissed if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. “Genuine issue” and “material fact” are terms of art. Courts frequently say the case cannot be dismissed if there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim. If she says she was there and he was there and that it happened, there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the claim – her testimony. To get the case dismissed, Trump would have to show ironclad uncontested evidence that it couldn’t have possibly happened – something like he was not in that town on the day it happened, or she was not.
The questions you have about credibility are considered questions for the jury. I handled commercial litigation cases when I was a lawyer. In one case, the plaintiff accused my client of securities fraud and added a claim of sexual assault as well. My client drove the plaintiff back to the Toronto airport after the transaction, and she asserted that he pulled off the road at one point and forced her to provide oral sex. Her accusation lacked credibility because (1) medical records demonstrated my client had been impotent for several years; (2) when they got to the airport he escorted her in past two Mounties and she said nothing; (3) when she arrived back in the states, she didn’t mention this alleged incident to her husband or anyone else for several weeks, until after the stock deal went sour; and (4) in her deposition she testified that he did not have an erection when he shoved her face in his crotch. She said she could clearly see his penis at that point. However, she could not say whether he was circumcised.
We still could not get the case dismissed because it was still he said/she said, although she didn’t have much credibility. Her lawyer didn’t believe her. We settled the case for $12,000. A jury trial would have cost more than that, and why pay $30,000 to find out if the jury will stick it to you despite the evidence?
I don’t know what jurisdiction the case you described is in, but the venue could be a problem. Juries frequently rule against deep-pocket clients despite the evidence. All it takes is a majority of the jurors who want to punish the defendant for any perceived transgressions unrelated to the claim at hand. Any jury trial is risky if you are ATT or Chase Manhattan. And if you are Donald Trump in some metropolitan areas, the jury could be problematic.
Isn’t there the issue of discovery as well? Trump’s opponents are not above leaking illegally to the media, and perhaps using discovery to dig up dirt is the real objective.
Rod Jean:
Yes, that’s why famous people with money usually settle out of court, and then that fact is used by their enemies to imply the accused’s guilt. It’s a nice little racket.
Here is some of the legal background so far.
Also, one wrinkle is that the accuser seems to have no idea when the offense took place except within a huge window that encompasses 1995-1996. How can a person defend himself against such amorphous facts?
It used to be very very hard to convict someone of rape, but now the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction.
You fail to understand a very basic thing. The question is not whetherTrump had an affair with her, which case her attractiveness and his sexual interest in her would be relevant.
I misunderstand nothing.
Frederick:
Nothing like that ever happened to me, fortunately, nor to the vast majority of the women I know. And yet it seemed to happen a lot to some women – not necessarily rapes, but sexual come-ons in inappropriate places from inappropriate people. The difference was not attractiveness, either. As best I can tell it may have been that the women I knew who were subject more often to that kind of thing gave off a vulnerable vibe, through no fault of their own. Often they seemed especially nice. Maybe the men thought for some reason they’d be an easy mark.
Trump’s accuser doesn’t seem to fit that description.
Art Deco:
That’s actually somewhat amusing. You misunderstand nothing, eh? Q.E.D.
You misunderstand nothing,
You made a claim. The claim is false. Nothing all that amusing.
Art Deco:
It is somewhat amusing that you are so certain that you are correct when you don’t even seem to understand what I’m saying about rape versus seduction. It is a pattern of yours to think your correctness is self-evident and that you merely have to assert you are correct to make it so.
You are a regular commenter here and make many valuable contributions. However, you also sometimes make errors and/or fail to understand something, and when that happens I don’t think you have ever admitted being mistaken.
It’s simple: throw enough mud at the man and something will stick.
Doesn’t even matter if it ever goes to trial, the media will have a field day and they just have to keep it up long enough to sully his image until the next elections, or until someone tries and succeeds in killing him.
After that he’s no longer a threat as he’ll be too old if not dead from natural causes by 2028.
I recall an accusation of this sort against Trump. Memory of detail fades but it seems to be the same one. A reporter–not a journalist–said she’d gone to the site–a store– and the whole thing could not have happened due to the physical arrangements, changing room, so forth.
But, clothing store.
I do not recall if the report I read stipulated nobody else in the store.
Kind of fuzzy, I know, but there being two nearly identical reports about two separate nearly identical incidents is unlikely.
So maybe looking at the dressing room and its immediate surroundings would be a fun thing to do.
Reading her account of the “rape”, it seemed fake and fantasy.
The account suggests they were standing facing each other when it happened. And she escaped by kicking him.
The interview where she mentioned “rape fantasies” should have ended any rape claims.
neo:
However, the idea that she’s not attractive enough to be raped is an absurdity. That’s not the way rape works in the minds of many rapists. If Trump were the rapist type (and I don’t think he is), the fact that she’s not as attractive as his own wife would almost certainly not be relevant.
It doesn’t make sense to me that someone in Trump’s position in 95/96 would risk a forcible rape in public, particularly of a woman her age.
How would Trump keep her quiet after the rape? Weinstein raped young women he had influence over. Carol was a middle aged woman with an established career independent of Trump. Trump had lots to lose, and no way to prevent Carol from talking.
Richard Aubrey,
It sounds like you are talking about Carol’s rape claims.
These were repeated by her several times over the years. I don’t recall her stating the store was empty, but also don’t think she mentioned other people. Probably because she is repeating her own fantasy. Her account always sounded like fantasy, and then she mentioned rape fantasy in her interview with Anderson Cooper (he quickly went to break).
Hi neo,
Please feel free to delete this comment, if you think it is inappropriate for this site.
**Emotional Trigger Warning**
I’m going to talk about people who [tried to sexually assault me], or [people who threatened me with sexual assault], before I was an adult.
When I was about 14, I went to a new high school, in the US.
I was a boy/male, and I still am.
I was a small, thin kid, and I guess I was about 4-foot, 7 inches tall.
This school was for kids who were about 13-18 years old.
This school, I guess to try to give its students some freedom, had a policy of: If you don’t want to go to a study-hall period, you can just roam the school, or hang out in the school, for that period.
To me, that’s not the safest idea, out there.
One day, I’m trying to walk to my next class.
I turn the corner + see three older guys. They are one one side of the hallway, + they are facing me.
No one else is in this hallway.
Each one of these guys is: about 40 pounds heavier than me, and they each look about 12 inches taller than me. Meaning- I don’t think I’m strong enough to fight them.
I don’t feel like telling you all the details, but- then one of the guys walks up to me, + puts on an angry + frightening face, and asks me what my name is…and maybe other questions like that.
…this guy is scaring me.
I hadn’t been taught how to handle threatening people like this, so I told him my name.
He then continues shouting at me.
He is using various things to threaten me, like: his frightening voice + face expression, his shouting, + moving his arms like he’s going to capture me or hit me.
His friends are enjoying this, thinking that this is something enjoyable, or funny.
THIS GUY THEN TELLS ME to do a sex act with one of his friends,…his friends are standing nearby.
I don’t want to be in this situation anymore.
I then walk over to this guy’s tall friend…he’s grinning a lot.
I then stare at this new guy a moment, + then I quickly walk away.
As I do this, the guy who talked to me, who is now behind me, screams at me in a serious voice: “WHAT DID I SAY???”
His friends think that this is funny, and they laugh at it.
That ends my story.
So, is my story true? Yes it is.
Did I escape a sexual crime, or was I threatened with a sexual crime? I
truly believe so.
You may think anything you like about me, + You may think that my story is true or not, that is totally your freedom, + it is reasonable for you to think that my story is, or it isn’t true.
Because you + I don’t know each other.
My points are: sexual crimes, and being threatened with sexual crimes, are somethings that can happen to anyone, despite their: age, gender, size, or other traits.
Another point of mine is- if a sexual crime or [a threat of a sexual crime], has been done to you- I hope that you get the emotional help, + medical help, and legal justice that you need.
I just wanted to tell you, that I didn’t as this question about this court case, out of any dismissive feeling, or out of any casual feeling, about this court case.
These types of crimes and accusations are very important, in my view.
TR:
There is no question whatsoever that sexual assaults occur, and that many accusers are telling the truth. No question. And I see no reason to doubt you.
That, however, is of course different from an accusation against someone like Trump when he’s president and the target of hate from all sides.
And still another thing is proving any of it in a court of law. The standard of proof is much higher there – or should be – and rightly so.
Don;
As I’ve pointed out several times, I don’t think Trump raped her.
But as I’ve also pointed out, that’s because he’s not a rapist and not because she’s not attractive enough to him to be raped by him. It’s also because rapists are not necessarily motivated by attraction in the same way non-rapists who try to seduce are motivated.
Richard Aubrey;
The accusation by this same woman was in the news in 2019, so perhaps you heard it then.
Hi neo,
Thank you for your reply.
Thanks also for being kind and understanding about my feelings in your reply.
I’d also like to say that, about your thoughts about Trump and the like, in your last reply- I 100% agree.
Thank you for your reply.
Thank you.
TR:
You’re welcome.
Hi neo,
I might have messed that up-
In telling my high school story, on this site, I meant to say that- I was telling my story [to everyone who reads the story], + that I wasn’t trying to tell it to just you, personally, or direct it to just you, personally.
I just wanted to make clear about why I wrote it.
Thank you,
TR
I’m not great with words, I guess.
What I meant is- I wrote my comments for- neo and all of this site’s readers, and not- just for neo or just for the readers.
Cheers, TR.