Another Credible Rape Claim Against Trump....

[oxmixmudd]

Trump was an influencial and well-known celebrity long before he ran for President, so any reason they would feel to come forward now to protect the public, they would have had then. Yet none came forward until now. And every one so far has either gone away quietly or has been shown to be unreliable and making false allegations. They did the same with Kavenaugh. It seems to be a standard liberal strategy, try to ruin the reputation of the person they don't want in office by bringing forth accusation after accusation of sexual impropriety or in this case rape.

I dont think its that simple. As a TV celebrity he's not in a position of public trust, especially the one he had. And there were people willing to risk it before

See

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dona...ct_allegations

Taking on Trump is no trivial decision. But as you well know, once someone takes the risk and is not obliterated, others that faced similar circumstances will feel they might have a chance or an obligation or both and they will step forward.

Jim

[Sparko]

I dont think its that simple. As a TV celebrity he's not in a position of public trust, especially the one he had. And there were people willing to risk it before

See

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dona...ct_allegations

Taking on Trump is no trivial decision. But as you well know, once someone takes the risk and is not obliterated, others that faced similar circumstances will feel they might have a chance or an obligation or both and they will step forward.

Jim

And you are ignoring the fact that this is a standard attack of the left on conservatives running for any office and not one allegation has stuck. It's just a smear campaign. Trump used to be a womanizer but there is no credible evidence he was a rapist so far.

[Cow Poke]

No you don't. All the evidence shows Trump as a womanizer who's had multiple affairs and who openly claims to kiss women without even asking, any time he wants, so often he doesn't even think about it, so much as to put his hand anywhere he wants and get away with it. He revels in his power to do whatever he wants to women. He didn't get to where he could make that boast without leaving a trail of women he experimented on to find out that is what he could do.

You are living in a fantasy pixie, a paranoid one at that. Trump has sowed wild oats from here to china and back, and they keep coming back to haunt him. Trump has as much chance of being 'not guilty' on this as Lance Armstrong had of 'not doping'.


Jim

I ended up being the jury foreman on a trial....

(After spending 15 minutes typing this whole thing out, I realized it would simply be a waste of time. )

[Cow Poke]

And you are ignoring the fact that this is a standard attack of the left on conservatives running for any office and not one allegation has stuck. It's just a smear campaign. Trump used to be a womanizer but there is no credible evidence he was a rapist so far.

So, let's use any possible allegation of impropriety to destroy a person.
AND, let's mock the "Billy Graham rule" that could seriously mitigate a lot of these cases.

That still amazes me.

[Littlejoe]

I ended up being the jury foreman on a trial....

That's shocking actually! A former Police Officer turned Pastor usually would be quickly struck off by the defense....I'm surprised to say the least!

I have served on 2 criminal trial juries, one for Man Slaughter and the other was a drug case, man recorded selling drugs to an undercover agent within a school zone, (and 3rd strike to boot) But I wasn't a Chaplain at the time so...

[oxmixmudd]

And you are ignoring the fact that this is a standard attack of the left on conservatives running for any office and not one allegation has stuck. It's just a smear campaign. Trump used to be a womanizer but there is no credible evidence he was a rapist so far.

I dont know if this qualifies as rape either. But it is certainly harassment.

And I tend to think its more that most of these guys have played around and so it's just low hanging fruit as it were.

But I don't understand how you can be of a mind to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in a case like this. He has never shown himself to be deserving of it. I guess its more your distrust of the other side exceeds your distrust of Trump?


Jim

[Cow Poke]

That's shocking actually! A former Police Officer turned Pastor usually would be quickly struck off by the defense....I'm surprised to say the least!

That was the fun part -- the attorney doing the Voir dire was obviously inexperienced, and he asked ALL KINDS of questions... "Is anybody here married to a police officer - is anybody here currently serving as a police officer - is anybody here related to a police officer....."

After the trial, during the time when both sides are encouraged to have an informal chat with the jury, that attorney asked me "How did you get on the jury, being a former police officer?" I told him "you never asked the right question!". He went over his notes, and looked quite unhappy --- "I never asked if anybody was a FORMER police officer!"

I have served on 2 criminal trial juries, one for Man Slaughter and the other was a drug case, man recorded selling drugs to an undercover agent within a school zone, (and 3rd strike to boot) But I wasn't a Chaplain at the time so...

Yeah, I usually get dismissed pretty easily for a variety of reasons.

[rogue06]

Yeah, I usually get dismissed pretty easily for a variety of reasons.

Riding your horse up the courthouse steps, hopping off while hollering "So who's the varmint that we're hanging today" might play a factor in that.

[Cow Poke]

Riding your horse up the courthouse steps, hopping off while hollering "So who's the varmint that we're hanging today" might play a factor in that.

Well, yeah, but I've tried to tone down the hollering to a respectful interrogatory.

[rogue06]

Well, yeah, but I've tried to tone down the hollering to a respectful interrogatory.

You let me slide about omitting the question mark at the end of the quote.

Your getting soft.

[Cow Poke]

You let me slide about omitting the question mark at the end of the quote.

Your getting soft.

I'm still licking my wounds over Jimmy's profound and intense flailing of me for assuming his little dissertation on sin was a "theology lesson".

I need a tissue.

[rogue06]

I'm still licking my wounds over Jimmy's profound and intense flailing of me for assuming his little dissertation on sin was a "theology lesson".

I need a tissue.

Sorry. Gunny wasn't available

[Cow Poke]

Sorry. Gunny wasn't available

And he has a tendency... um, HAD a tendency... to use some very colorful language.

[mikewhitney]

Interesting. How then are so many Christians able to be on Trump's side with each and every accusation against him from each and every woman that claims he has assaulted her? Every Single One. Not one of these ladies is telling the truth they say. And yet the evidence exists in spades that this is the sort of person Donald Trump is. It does not pass credulity to me that people who have sworn allegiance to Christ and to moral purity can time and time again attack the woman claiming to have been assaulted and defend Trump without some sort of compromise of their moral character taking place. With Trump's character, it is nearly impossible for all of these women to be liars. There are just too many.

I do appreciate your effort to try to point out what I'm doing to provoke hostility. But the reality is there is nothing I can do that will lesson the hostility. Just watch and see. I'll try to avoid what you are pointing out. But it will make no difference.



Jim

I'm not sure I follow you.

If we aren't on America's and Trump's side, do you want us instead to be for Iran and China ... or for drug lords? There isn't really an alternative choice is there?

Or do we go with the Democrats, who have sought to disempower a duly elected president of the US? This is what the many accusers are trying to do. It all seems to be for political play. Is it your desire to promote such a banana republic form of government?

If Trump was found to have done anything of the accusers, did you support Bill Clinton, who was well-proven to doing this stuff and worse?

I'm not sure what you are advocating here. Please advise. Your position is very confusing.

[Cow Poke]

You're being silly. In a he/she said, one believes the most credible of two if one believes anything at all.

You're being silly. If it worked like that, then all a person has to do is find somebody with a worse reputation than themselves, and pile on.

In this case, she is by far the more credible, though I will agree chosing to reveal the story in a book means shes capitalizing on it - which hurts her credibility.

How well do you know this woman, Jim? You only know what has been published.

And thats really all that needs to be or can be said about it in the absence of hard evidence to support or deny her account of what happened.

Jim

So, how bout we wait for more facts?