Patterico's Pontifications

6/21/2019

Author Claims Trump Sexually Assaulted Her In Lingerie Department Dressing Room

Filed under: General — Dana @ 4:29 pm



[guest post by Dana]

In E. Jean Carroll’s upcoming book, “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal,” due to be released in July, the author claims that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her after encountering him in Bergdorf Goodman. Why didn’t Elle columnist and former television host Carroll go public with her story sooner? Say like when he was running for the presidency? Well, she’ll tell you why. In her recounting of the event, she meets skeptical readers head-on:

Why haven’t I “come forward” before now?

Receiving death threats, being driven from my home, being dismissed, being dragged through the mud, and joining the 15 women who’ve come forward with credible stories about how the man grabbed, badgered, belittled, mauled, molested, and assaulted them, only to see the man turn it around, deny, threaten, and attack them, never sounded like much fun. Also, I am a coward.

Thus she joins 15 other women who have made accusations of sexual misconduct against President Trump.

According to Carroll, it began when she happened to bump into Donald Trump, whom she had met once before, in Bergdorf Goodman. She describes a light-hearted romp through the store to help him find a gift for a woman:

I am surprised at how good-looking he is. We’ve met once before, and perhaps it is the dusky light but he looks prettier than ever. This has to be in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996 because he’s garbed in a faultless topcoat and I’m wearing my black wool Donna Karan coatdress and high heels but not a coat.

“Come advise me,” says the man. “I gotta buy a present.”

“Oh!” I say, charmed. “For whom?”

“A girl,” he says.

“Don’t the assistants of your secretaries buy things like that?” I say.

“Not this one,” he says. Or perhaps he says, “Not this time.” I can’t recall. He is a big talker, and from the instant we collide, he yammers about himself like he’s Alexander the Great ready to loot Babylon.

As we are standing just inside the door, I point to the handbags. “How about—”

“No!” he says, making the face where he pulls up both lips like he’s balancing a spoon under his nose, and begins talking about how he once thought about buying Bergdorf ’s.

“Or … a hat!” I say enthusiastically, walking toward the handbags, which, at the period I’m telling you about — and Bergdorf’s has been redone two or three times since then — are mixed in with, and displayed next to, the hats. “She’ll love a hat! You can’t go wrong with a hat!”

I don’t remember what he says, but he comes striding along — greeting a Bergdorf sales attendant like he owns the joint and permitting a shopper to gape in awe at him — and goes right for a fur number.

“Please,” I say. “No woman would wear a dead animal on her head!”

What he replies I don’t recall, but I remember he coddles the fur hat like it’s a baby otter.

“How old is the lady in question?” I ask.

“How old are you?” replies the man, fondling the hat and looking at me like Louis Leakey carbon-dating a thighbone he’s found in Olduvai Gorge.

“I’m 52,” I tell him.

“You’re so old!” he says, laughing — he was around 50 himself — and it’s at about this point that he drops the hat, looks in the direction of the escalator, and says, “Lingerie!” Or he may have said “Underwear!” So we stroll to the escalator. I don’t remember anybody else greeting him or galloping up to talk to him, which indicates how very few people are in the store at the time.

According to Carroll, it’s in the lingerie department where things turned ugly but not until after they playfully banter about which of them should try on the lingerie that he grabbed from the counter.

At this point in her story, Carroll confirms that there is no available security footage to back up her story (Bergdorf Goodman did not retain any footage from that time), and that she didn’t report the encounter to the police but did tell two close friends about what happened in the dressing room:

I told two close friends. The first, a journalist, magazine writer, correspondent on the TV morning shows, author of many books, etc., begged me to go to the police.

“He raped you,” she kept repeating when I called her. “He raped you. Go to the police! I’ll go with you. We’ll go together.”

My second friend is also a journalist, a New York anchorwoman. She grew very quiet when I told her, then she grasped both my hands in her own and said, “Tell no one. Forget it! He has 200 lawyers. He’ll bury you.” (Two decades later, both still remember the incident clearly and confirmed their accounts to New York.)

And here’s what Carroll claims happened once inside the dressing room:

The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.

I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.

The whole episode lasts no more than three minutes. I do not believe he ejaculates. I don’t remember if any person or attendant is now in the lingerie department. I don’t remember if I run for the elevator or if I take the slow ride down on the escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth Avenue.

Bloomberg News has published a statement from President Trump in response to Carroll’s allegations, saying `I’ve never met this person in my life':

Untitled

CNN’s Daniel Dale posts a photograph of Trump and his first wife socializing with Carroll and her former husband:

Untitled

I completely understand why she didn’t go to the police and file a report. And I even understand why she remained silent all of these years. This especially if you read the entirety of the released portion of her book linked in the post. But what puzzles me (and maybe I’m just old school) is: Why would she would enter the confines of a dressing room with a man she had only met on one prior occasion? Who does that? (I’ll just note here that even if their mutually playful banter was an indication that there was the hope of something happening once inside the dressing room, it would obviously never justify the actions that Carroll has alleged that Trump took against her.)

As for Trump, well, Carroll’s description of the encounter neatly dovetails with Trump’s own description of himself: :

I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” he said in the 2005 conversation. “Grab ’em by the pussy.”

Obviously none of know with certainty what, if anything happened between Trump and Carroll, but here’s the thing: Two women in whom she confided, have confirmed that she told them about the alleged assault. That alone matters. That alone is troubling. I hope they go public. And if the assault did happen as described by Carroll, then it should matter to Americans. And especially to those who support Trump, and are working toward his re-election. Because if an illegal act as described by Carroll took place at the hands of a man who is seeking to be re-elected as President of the United States and doesn’t matter to his supporters, then something is dreadfully wrong. Oh. Wait. What’s that? Right: We pretty much already know it won’t matter, and will be viewed as nothing more than a little blip on people’s radar. If that.

P.S. Carroll says that “the Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening”.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

231 Responses to “Author Claims Trump Sexually Assaulted Her In Lingerie Department Dressing Room”

  1. Here we go.

    Dana (bb0678)

  2. I’m not sure whether it’s real or not… but, it’s pretty damning that two of her friends remember this event. However, they’ll have to go public and back it up.

    But the whitewash of Brodderick’s credible rape claim for 20+ years and the disparate treatment between Kavanaugh and Justin Fairfax is going to make a lot of people care somewhat less.

    That’s where we’re at with these things now.

    whembly (4605df)

  3. Speaking of Fairfax… when sexual misconduct allegations work in your favor:

    Fairfax told reporters during a roundtable discussion Thursday the allegations raised his public profile in the state and he has encountered supporters in the state encouraging him to run despite the allegations.

    “Many people a year ago would not have recognized me, now they really do,” the lieutenant governor said. “People come up to me at gas stations, they say, ‘Hey, we recognize you. We love you. We know what they are saying about you is false.’”

    Dana (bb0678)

  4. Nobody would need 200 lawyers to defend this case. She went into a dressing room with him to change into lingerie? What was she thinking would happen? Admiring looks and suggestive remarks, and then at his place chateaubriand, Dom Perignon, and Beluga, and the morning after Breakfast At Tiffany’s?

    As for the two friends she told her story to, that’s not corroboration. It would not even be admitted into evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief. Only if the defense tried to claim recent fabrication with an ulterior motive. Emphasis on recent. And maybe not even then — it’s up to the judge’s sound discretion.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. To be clear. If she had run out of the dressing room screaming “He raped me”, then that’s a different category of hearsay. All the people present who heard her could testify to that.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. That was another thing that was puzzling to me, nk. Why didn’t she scream during the struggle or when she ran out of the dressing room?

    Dana (bb0678)

  7. I shook hands with George Bush – with a hundred other people – in 2000. If he says he doesn’t know RcOcean he’s a LIAR!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  8. I shook hands with George Bush – with a hundred other people – in 2000. If he says he doesn’t know RcOcean he’s a LIAR!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  9. Our Lady is distress, or rather undress, is a a well known Leftist. Why didn’t she bring this up in 2016? Was she too shy? I hear she’s a real wallflower. Could it be, she’s SELLING A BOOK?

    And why would Donald – who was with 30 something, knockout Marple Maples, rape 50 year old Whats her name? Does Donald have a thing for Old chicks? That’s news to me.

    Is there ANY Slander that the left will not publish against someone who opposes their Globalist agenda? FDR was boinking Lucy Mercer when he died. JKK was boinking gangster molls, prostitutes, and WH Interns. Clinton was getting Lewinsky’s in the WH. But I’m supposed to care/believe that Trump was having Sex with a 50 y/o journalist in a department store.

    Wow, just Wow.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  10. When a former WH intern talked about how JFK threw her on a bed and “Had his way with her” and then had sex with her, every time Jackie O was out of town, the Liberal media was outraged. How dare she bring this up! What was the point?!

    Now that Trump is in the office, its unproven slander, 24/7. Because that’s what you get when you oppose open borders, free trade, and are a Republican.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  11. What is this ground hog day, did the affair avenatti not teach any lessons at all.

    Narciso (e49d7b)

  12. From the linked article:

    Do I attract hideous men? Possibly.But I’ve also encountered many creeps, villains, dickwads,and chumps simply because I’ve been around a long time. I was mostly single, free of encumbrances, and working in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, when a woman could scarcely walk down the street without getting hit on or take a job without being underpaid.

    Being “hit on” on the street or being paid unfairly isn’t exactly comparable to rape. Maybe some of the men on her list of the “Most Hideous Men in [Her] Life” didn’t attempt or succeed at sexual assault, but the ones she described in detail certainly did.

    Here’s where she ranks Trump on her list:

    This is during the years I am doing a daily Ask E. Jean TV show for the cable station America’s Talking, a precursor to MSNBC launched by Roger Ailes (who, by the way, is No. 16 on my list).

    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!”

    If some of the men ahead of Trump on her list didn’t attempt or commit some sort of sexual assault, what exactly made them so hideous that they rank above someone whom she alleges did exactly that?

    She is an attractive woman, and the photos from past decades that accompany the article (I’m guessing there are more in the book) confirm that to have been true as well when she was much younger. But if she’s rating 19 men as more hideous than Trump, one also wonders just how long the list is — perhaps one has to buy the book for the whole list — and how accurate her recollections, or perhaps her perceptions at the time, really were.

    And one wonders: Was she some kind of sexual harassment and assault magnet, year after year, decade after decade? And she just kept absorbing those assaults, decade after decade, without ever going to the police?

    “Believe all women” is, and always has been, a total crock of crap. Some women are credible, and their claims to be victims are likewise credible; some are not.

    And nk’s absolutely right in #4 about the “corroborating witnesses.”

    From what’s in the article and the Wikipedia entry about her, I’d rank the inherent credibility of this tale as waaaaaaay below either Stormy Daniel’s or Karen McDougal’s tales — and they both alleged sex with Trump that they concede to have been consensual, and are, respectively, a stripper/porn star and Playmate of the Year.

    Color me unconvinced.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  13. (The bold-facing in #12 is my own.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  14. Maybe Trump was telling the truth for once. Maybe there are a lot of women — some willingly and some not – – who have let him “Grab ’em by the pussy” and done nothing about it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  15. If they were unwilling, they let him anyway?

    Dana (bb0678)

  16. Yes, for example, with date rapes and with this woman (if she is telling the truth). Sometimes people cry rape over consensual sex, and sometimes it is rape but they don’t resist or report for lots of reasons.

    DRJ (15874d)

  17. Yes, I agree. Just wanted to clarify.

    Dana (bb0678)

  18. Be prepared to see much more of this as we get closer to Nov. 2020.

    Same with constant notifications on how brilliant/competent/refreshing/everything Hitler-Trump is not regarding Liz Warren unless they can’t move the meter. Then they’ll settle on another member of the Woke Brigade.

    harkin (647002)

  19. And why would Donald – who was with 30 something, knockout Marple Maples, rape 50 year old Whats her name? Does Donald have a thing for Old chicks?

    Seriously, rcocean? Wow, just wow indeed.

    Dana (bb0678)

  20. The worst thing about ever defending Trump over anything is the company you find yourself in.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. So tell me, what have the 15-20 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct gained as a result of going public?

    Dana (bb0678)

  22. They may not have gained anything, Dana, but then I think of someone like Juanita Broaddrick and her claim against Clinton. I always found her story credible yet I don’t think she got justice. It probably seems like she gained nothing but if you are telling the truth, then I think there can be satisfaction in telling people your story.

    DRJ (15874d)

  23. But clearly there are fake claims, too, and I think their motivations have more to do with publicity and hurting specific people.

    DRJ (15874d)

  24. I asked because it doesn’t seem like any of these women have gained a thing, in spite of us being told that women only make claims like this against Trump because they are attention seekers, publicity whores who want their 15 minutes of fame and to take down the president.

    Dana (bb0678)

  25. 21. How many people went public with claims of sexual misconduct before Trump ran for office? I’m sure that whether they are telling the truth or not, they hope to derail his political ambitions. I doubt that it has much to do with anyone’s idea of “justice.”

    Gryph (08c844)

  26. If derailing his presidency were the goal and this many women have failed, you’d have to be pretty stupid to put yourself through public hell and humiliation thinking you were the one that could actually take him down.

    Dana (bb0678)

  27. When we see that some people will make up stories to tar political figures, it is hard to accept any testimony without hard cold evidence.

    Thankfully, we don’t need it. We have clear and convincing evidence that Donald Trump is incompetent and unable to grasp the responsibilities of his office. That in itself is a high crime against the nation. We don’t need these behavioral claims when the behavior we can see plainly should be enough.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  28. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.

    Gerald Ford, remarks in the U.S. House of Representatives in an effort to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (15 April 1970)

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  29. David French asks:

    How many contemporaneously-corroborated reports of sexual assault do Republicans need to read — or tapes bragging about sexual assault do Republicans need to hear — before they understand the president is a likely sex predator?

    Dana (bb0678)

  30. @ Dana (#19): Some folks are not acquainted with the concept of “over the top.” My assumption is that rcocean is among them, and indeed, that he may fairly be described for purposes of that metaphor as “topless.”

    @ rcocean (#9): Do you think Melania Trump is attractive, like Marla Maples?

    If so, using your same logic, please explain to us why Trump would bed and then pay off Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels in 2006, while married to Melania?

    I submit that the answer to your “why would he?” question, at least as to those two women, was “because he could.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  31. 26. I didn’t say it was a reasonable or well thought out goal. It’s just the only one that remotely makes any sense at all to me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  32. Well, this is rather an unbelievable thing to say:

    On MSNBC, Trump rape accuser E. Jean Carroll is asked whether she would press rape charge against the president. MSNBC apparently hoping for Lewinsky-dress situation. Carroll says no charges. Why? Says it would be ‘disrespectful’ to women being raped on the border.

    Dana (bb0678)

  33. How many contemporaneously-corroborated reports of sexual assault do Republicans need to read — or tapes bragging about sexual assault do Republicans need to hear — before they understand the president is a likely sex predator?

    I don’t know, maybe one CREDIBLE ONE that happened in the last 10 YEARS! And if Surrender Monkey French cares so much about sexual assault – why did David French want to support a 3rd Party and elect Hillary and BILL CLINTON – A known Sexual Predator and impeached perjurer – to the White House in 2016?

    David French, the Liberal Democrats favorite “conservative”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  34. David French’s question impliedly assumes that all of Trump’s accusers are not only credible, but equally credible, and that Trump’s guilt or innocence as to the claims of any one of them can somehow be proved by the number of other accusers.

    That’s fine for the gossip mill, or, frankly, even for politics. But every accuser’s accusations must be taken one at a time, separately, if you’re actually interested in the Rule of Law and its application to these claims, which one would think French, a lawyer, should already know.

    I don’t doubt that Trump is capable of anything. That he is such a compulsive, obvious, and terrible liar, about this and so very much more — never met Ms. Carroll? Is that photo of them a fake? — makes me assess the credibility of his denial at zero.

    But as much as I despise him, I think every accuser, and her story, must be considered separately and thoroughly in the context of all other surrounding evidence and circumstances. Ms. Carroll does not seem credible to me, no matter how many other women have made sexual assault allegations against Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  35. There are credible reasons not to press charges, including limitations have run, but women being raped on the border is not one of them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  36. 32
    I would think the statute of limitations would have kicked in quite a while ago.

    Kishnevi (c91988)

  37. I think we can all agree that if enough liberal Democrats accuse a Republican of sexual assault, from 20-20 years ago, it MUST be true.

    5,000 women called the FBI and said Kavanaugh sexually abused them. And 5,000 women can’t be wrong! After all, why would they Lie?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  38. I think we can all agree that if enough liberal Democrats accuse a Republican of sexual assault, from 20-20 years ago, it MUST be true.

    5,000 women called the FBI and said Kavanaugh sexually abused them. And 5,000 women can’t be wrong! After all, why would they Lie?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  39. The Article III standard for removing judges is not showing “good Behavior”. Does not have to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crime or Misdemeanor”. I think the first one removed was for being a foul-mouthed drunk.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. MSNBC has clips of her being interviewed about the encounter. It’s interesting viewing.

    Dana (bb0678)

  41. MSNBC and CNN gave stormy daneils and Michael Avenatti about 100 times. I wonder who’s going to accuse Trump of Rape in October 2020? You tell me.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  42. Great photo. Imagine The Donald and Ivana ‘pressing the flesh’ w/a top local NYC TV reporter and his wife at a media event in Midtown. Likely one of three he went to that night. All that’s missing is cocaine. John Johnson was at WABC-NY around then. Ah, the nostalgia; those rowdy, reckless, anything goes, gilded days of Reagan.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. “On MSNBC, Trump rape accuser E. Jean Carroll is asked whether she would press rape charge against the president. MSNBC apparently hoping for Lewinsky-dress situation. Carroll says no charges. Why? Says it would be ‘disrespectful’ to women being raped on the border.”

    Does the above statement make sense to anybody out there? Wth did I just read?

    harkin (647002)

  44. From what I’m reading, New York doesn’t have a statue of limitations for 1st degree rape, and Cuomo is signing a bill to extend them for 2nd and 3rd degree.

    Dana (bb0678)

  45. Umm, I might just question her credibility a bit.

    https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

    She seems to claim that man after man either raped or attempted to rape her.

    Selling a book?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  46. Is Trump moral enough to run a bar?

    (Spoiler alert: no, in fact he’s not even moral enough to run a wh*rehouse)

    The liquor license for Trump International Hotel in downtown D.C. is up for renewal. And a group of D.C. residents made up of clergy members and judges is asking ABRA to deny the license because the man who is running the country isn’t fit, in their eyes, to run a bar.

    D.C. law says liquor license holders must be of “good character and generally fit for the responsibilities of licensure,” said Joshua Levy, an attorney working with the judges and clergy members who filed a complaint explaining how they believe this does not describe Trump.

    […]

    The liquor board dismissed the protest last year because the license was already issued and whiskey tastings and champagne saberings were well underway at the hotel.

    But this year, the license is up for renewal. And in its June 12 actions, the board agreed to hear the Trump challenge.

    Now, after 34 people and three companies associated with Trump have been indicted, convicted or pleaded guilty to criminal charges, the group may have a stronger case.

    The article goes on to mention that the $7M Trump still owes the city for his inauguration expenses might be another sticking point…

    Dave (1bb933)

  47. Says it would be ‘disrespectful’ to women being raped on the border.

    This doesn’t help her credibility. It shows that she has a distinct and extreme political motivation to make these charges. It also says she may not think things through very well.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  48. Meanwhile justin Fairfax is thinking of running for governor, seems like they dropped him down a memory hole

    Narciso (e49d7b)

  49. You ever get the feeling that Trump is campaigning for the Democrats and the Democrats are campaigning for Trump?

    nk (dbc370)

  50. I believe that is why a turd party is needed, nk.

    mg (8cbc69)

  51. third

    mg (8cbc69)

  52. If nothing else, Miss Elle has given me a title for my next detective story: “Pickup On Fifth Avenue”.

    nk (dbc370)

  53. I have no idea if she is credible or not. I know she has obviously made some very questionable decisions in her life. The first of which was going to IU. Why would anyone do that? More importantly she has a long history of sexual assault, in the excerpt from TheCut she details how she was sexually assaulted 3 times by age of 17 and another time in her 20’s I believe, 2 of these men are included in her list of 21 hideous men, all of which I think is safe to assume, sexually assaulted her. Then at the age of 52 she goes into a dressing room with Donald Trump because he wants her to try on lingerie. What???? That is something I can’t understand. Wouldn’t a woman with that much history be scared to death of it happening again?

    anounymouse (4f3f3b)

  54. Cant wait for the title of the sequel, nk!!

    mg (8cbc69)

  55. There was a 5 year statute of limitations on rape charges in NY the 1990’s when she claimed this occurred. I think it was changed in 2005.

    DRJ (15874d)

  56. I believe that is why a turd party is needed, nk.

    mg (8cbc69) — 6/22/2019 @ 6:02 am

    third

    mg (8cbc69) — 6/22/2019 @ 6:03 am

    mg… a turd party works. Gotta be better than the other two abomination. 😉

    whembly (4605df)

  57. “The Case Of The Ditzy Deb”, mg?

    nk (dbc370)

  58. “So tell me, what have the 15-20 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct gained as a result of going public?”

    They gain what all attention seeking false accusers that are female gain. Sympathetic support and back pats from those that finds their accusations politically useful and clueless white knights who #believealldewomenz.

    SGT Ted (c9a5ed)

  59. Of course it would “matter” Dana, if it is true. But all these years later with no evidence except her two friends who of course corroborate her story?

    So if it “matters” then what? Vote for Biden?

    Patricia (3363ec)

  60. 58. Rest assured, Patricia, it doesn’t and won’t matter to those of us who believed last week Trump was unfit to run for dog catcher. We believed that before, and this doesn’t change our opinion either way.

    Gryph (08c844)

  61. The most credible accusations are always those claiming it happened 30 years ago to sell a book by a partisan from the opposition during an election year.

    SGT Ted (c9a5ed)

  62. As I asked then, Gryph, who then will you vote for?

    Patricia (3363ec)

  63. Indeed, whembly.

    mg (8cbc69)

  64. Send me a copy, nk. I’ll start it after “Young Benjamin Franklin”.

    mg (8cbc69)

  65. Maybe Trump was telling the truth for once.

    It’s possible. And it’s possible that he had no recollection of the occasion when he was chatting with E.Jean and her husband, and that he didn’t regard the photo as evidence that he had actually “met” her.
    It’s possible that she has serious credibility issues – though people who are concocting stories don’t usually specify where their recollection is unclear.
    Still, it’s a bit rich for Trump’s defenders to be spotlighting her credibility problem and expecting everyone to ignore Trump’s credibility problem.

    Trump defenders have insisted that his false statements are merely “exaggerations, not lies,” or that he’s just being a “master troller,” or that his lies are always about trivial things, never about anything important. They don’t even try to explain why a person who frequently lies about trivial things ought to be believed on bigger things. It’s reasonable to wonder what basis there is for believing him, even if you see reasons to doubt her.

    The knee-jerk Trump defenders are actually resorting to a version of what Clinton defenders often trotted out: “Who you gonna believe? Some trashy bimbo or The President of the United States?!”

    Radegunda (1db015)

  66. “Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸
    @JackPosobiec
    Russia failed, Hitler failed, so they are going back to Trump is a rapist”

    harkin (58d012)

  67. Shorter version of #64:

    Why should we give any credibility to Trump’s denial – on this or anything else – when he has been known to deny (e.g.) saying things that he said, on tape, a very short time before?

    Radegunda (1db015)

  68. “Jerkoffs At Bergdorf’s”. The whole thing is outside the ken of normal people.

    nk (dbc370)

  69. #65: I’m old enough to remember when Dems were saying basically the same thing about rape accusations against Bill Clinton.

    Radegunda (1db015)

  70. “Lifestyles Of The Rich And Fatuous”.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. 61. My belief that Trump is unfit for office in no way shape or form compels me to choose an alternative. Politicians are unfit to hold office precisely because of what they do to achieve office.

    Gryph (08c844)

  72. Michael Avenatti
    @MichaelAvenatti
    Below is a statement from my client Julie Swetnick regarding Trump’s most recent lie: “It is outrageous that the President of the United States would use me and what happened to me to attempt to deflect away from his most recent sexual assault accusations…
    __ _

    Ben Domenech
    @bdomenech
    Thanks for taking a break from robbing paraplegics to tweet, you are the real hero

    _

    harkin (647002)

  73. #71: Michael Avenatti is sleazy, and therefore Donald Trump is believable? Is that the point?

    Radegunda (1db015)

  74. “#65: I’m old enough to remember when Dems were saying basically the same thing about rape accusations against Bill Clinton.”
    Radegunda (1db015) — 6/22/2019 @ 10:48 am

    Paula Jones filed charges. What “same thing” are you referring to?

    Munroe (ea46a3)

  75. “Drag a dollar bill through a trailer park and who knows what it will pull up,” or words to that effect from James Carville. Paula Jones did not allege rape, of course. Juanita Broaddrick did, and there were less-publicized suggestions of others. And multiple women made claims of lesser forms of assault. And Democrats took essentially none of them seriously. The women were trashy; they were mentally unstable, etc.

    The more accusations (of various kinds) against Clinton, the more his defenders painted him as a victim of a relentless right-wing conspiracy to bring him down. Every new accusation was simply added to the list of “smears” that couldn’t touch Teflon Bill.

    Trump defenders do something similar. Because there are a lot of complaints about Trump (some of them hysterical or exaggerated or hypocritical), therefore any new charge against Trump must be a pure invention to take him down.

    Radegunda (1db015)

  76. I also recall conservatives professing disgust at the situational ethics of women who didn’t care what Bill Clinton did with or to other women, as long as he kept abortion legal. Many of those conservatives are probably among those who have declared that Trump’s character doesn’t matter; it’s all about policy.

    Thanks to Donald Trump and his cheerleaders, Republicans and evangelical conservatives are now the most likely to say that character is not very important in a leader. And yet they’re outraged when allegations reflecting badly on Trump’s character become a bit too much for them to defend. (Outraged at the accusers, of course; never at Trump.)

    Radegunda (1db015)

  77. 75. All true. But stop to think for a moment about how that reflects on the American electorate.

    Gryph (08c844)

  78. 76: Says that we’re all hypocrites, in some measure …

    Radegunda (1db015)

  79. Gryph, Dana said it matters. That is the point here. How does it matter?

    Patricia (3363ec)

  80. 78. Dana said it matters because it should matter. I’m not convinced that it does matter to most of the voting public. It matters to me, but as I am in a minority, I am not in a position to do anything about it that doesn’t involve a pitchfork and a torch. And here we are.

    Gryph (08c844)

  81. And as a reminder to the idiot war hawks, a fire at the Philly oil refinery yesterday– one fire at one domestic refinery- projects a rise in East Coast gasoline prices of a nickel.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  82. …and the longrunning circle jerk/zombie shoot-out continues…

    Bravo!

    Colonel Haiku (951ecf)

  83. Insulting every commenter now, Haiku?

    DRJ (15874d)

  84. …and the longrunning circle jerk/zombie shoot-out continues…

    Are you suggesting that it’s a form of insanity (or perhaps “derangement”) to wonder why the character of our leaders suddenly stopped mattering to people who not long ago considered it crucial, or said they did? And to ask why we should ever believe Trump when he denies wrongdoing? Or why he should get the benefit of the doubt from the same people who had no difficulty believing some of the worst accusations against Clinton?

    Is it idiotic to wonder why we can’t try to be consistent in our standards of judgment?

    Radegunda (1db015)

  85. 83. I guess it is, RG.

    Gryph (08c844)

  86. The women is a liberal democrat who kept silent during the 2016 elections. Gee, I wonder why? Oh, that’s right. No book to sell.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  87. We are in a Cold War within this country. Different standards for different times. Lincoln and the Founding Fathers both understood that.

    NJRob (4b929f)

  88. Do a lot of rapes occur in Expensive NYC Department stores? I’d assume that a man going to a women’s dressing room in the lingerie department would have been noticed by one of the clerks. And that And all the laughing and sexual gyrations would’ve also been noticed.

    And don’t dressing have locks?

    But then, I’m not a Manhattanite. Maybe they like having sex in department stores.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  89. Basically, its open season on Republican Pols. Any attention seeker or liberal democrat can claim to be sexually abused, groped, or raped 10-20-30 years ago. No evidence required!

    The Democrats are in better shape, since Conservative women actually believe in truth and are hesitant to Lie. They also know the MSM will attack them if they make false charges, while Democrat women know that people will respond with “Hey, it could be true” and “Well, its possible” Or “Interesting”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  90. @ Patricia,

    So if it “matters” then what? Vote for Biden?

    No, I wouldn’t vote for Biden. I wasn’t someone who believed the election was a binary choice in 2016, and I won’t next go around.

    Dana (bb0678)

  91. The election was a binary choice. Its just the NEVER-TRUMPERS didn’t care which of the two choices won.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  92. I disagree with you, rcocean.

    Dana (bb0678)

  93. 90. No, it wasn’t. Not by any objective meaning of the word “binary choice.” There were three candidates who were on the ballot in all 50 states. Not two. Not four. Three.

    Gryph (08c844)

  94. @81. Meh. A Trump Steak needs a little seasoning on occasion; a little Adolph’s Meat Tenderizer, perhaps. Miss your regular pinch of pithiness, Haiku. Relaxing retirement, no doubt. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  95. #92

    90. No, it wasn’t. Not by any objective meaning of the word “binary choice.” There were three candidates who were on the ballot in all 50 states. Not two. Not four. Three.

    Gryph (08c844) — 6/22/2019 @ 3:11 pm

    Its binary in the sense that there could ever by two options:
    -President Trump
    or
    -President HRC

    Simply voting for third party, or not voting doesn’t make it less a binary choice.

    whembly (4605df)

  96. 94. But it isn’t. There is a third choice and it is on all 50 state ballots. The refusal of a brainwashed electorate to exercise that choice doesn’t mean it’s not there. You might as well argue with me that 2 + 2 = 5. You could “prove” that with sufficient logical gymnastics as well, but that doesn’t make a mathematical statement any truer.

    Gryph (08c844)

  97. Different standards for different times.

    So: when times are really desperate (or, when other Americans are promoting policies you don’t like), then you choose the leader who’s the most habitually dishonest, self-serving, petty, erratic, ignorant, etc. — and say it’s totally wrong to judge him by any standard whatsoever.
    Oddly, I’ve never seen that way of thinking endorsed by any of the Founders.

    Radegunda (1db015)

  98. It’s interesting to re-read Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton with Carroll’s:

    Broaddrick, who owns a nursing home in Van Buren and a facility for mentally retarded children in Fort Smith, Ark., said she first met Clinton in April 1978 when he was the state’s 31-year-old attorney general making his first run for governor and she was working as a volunteer for the campaign.

    During a campaign stop at her Van Buren facility, she said, Clinton talked with her and invited her to visit his campaign office in Little Rock. Broaddrick, then 35, agreed to do so a week later, on April 25, while in the capital with a friend for a conference sponsored by the American College of Nursing Home Administrators. “We were very excited,” she said. “We were going to pick up all that neat stuff, T-shirts, buttons.”

    Staying at the now-defunct Camelot Inn, Broaddrick said, she called the campaign headquarters and eventually talked with Clinton on the telephone. She later recalled he said he was not going to his headquarters that day and suggested they meet in the hotel coffee shop instead.

    Arriving later in the lobby, he called and asked if they could have coffee in her room instead because there were too many reporters in the lobby, Broaddrick said. “Stupid me, I ordered coffee to the room,” she said. “I thought we were going to talk about the campaign.”

    As she tells the story, they spent only a few minutes chatting by the window — Clinton pointed to an old jail he wanted to renovate if he became governor — before he began kissing her. She resisted his advances, she said, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.

    “The last thing he said to me was, ‘You better get some ice for that.’ And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door,” she recalled.

    With no witnesses and the passage of so much time, Broaddrick’s story is difficult if not impossible to verify, although her husband and a friend told The Post in separate interviews that she related her account to them contemporaneously. Norma Rogers, an employee and friend who traveled with her to the conference, said that she returned to the hotel room that day to find Broaddrick badly shaken and her lip swollen. They quickly packed and left, stopping to get ice for Broaddrick’s lip on the way back to Van Buren, both later said.

    Broaddrick, like Carroll, never reported the alleged incident to authorities. Her reasons for not doing so:

    [I]t never occurred to her to do so, because Clinton was a rising politician while she was “young and vulnerable” and in the middle of an extramarital affair.

    Dana (bb0678)

  99. Different standards for different times.

    A lot of people who are politically leftish, or just garden-variety Democrats, believe that we are speeding straight into fascism right now. So wouldn’t they be equally justified in abandoning all standard of integrity and decency in a leader, and just going for the smash-em-up bad-a$$? And would those who defend Trump unconditionally have any grounds to complain about it?

    Radegunda (1db015)

  100. “Oddly, I’ve never seen that way of thinking endorsed by any of the Founders.”
    Radegunda (1db015) — 6/22/2019 @ 3:31 pm

    Maybe you should ask their slaves.

    Munroe (5b7beb)

  101. Its just the NEVER-TRUMPERS didn’t care which of the two choices won.

    You are right.

    Both choices were corrupt authoritarian statists. So it didn’t really matter which of the two won.

    Kishnevi (573b0b)

  102. rcocean wrote in part (#88):

    The Democrats are in better shape, since Conservative women actually believe in truth and are hesitant to Lie.

    This is what poker players and spies call “a tell”: We can deduce that rcocean signed up for and completed the course titled “Trumpian Grammar 101: Almost Random Capitalization” at Trump University.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  103. My #100 is of course intended as a compliment, crediting rcocean with sharing one of his cult leader’s attributes, which any Trump superfan must consider a compliment, right?

    Trump fans all have the best words.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  104. #95

    94. But it isn’t. There is a third choice and it is on all 50 state ballots. The refusal of a brainwashed electorate to exercise that choice doesn’t mean it’s not there. You might as well argue with me that 2 + 2 = 5. You could “prove” that with sufficient logical gymnastics as well, but that doesn’t make a mathematical statement any truer.

    Gryph (08c844) — 6/22/2019 @ 3:26 pm

    I voted for the stoner in 2016. (Gary Johnson)

    But, I knew, beyond the shadow of doubt that it would either be Trump or Hillary in the state of Missouri.

    Doesn’t matter that there was a third option (or the option to not vote).

    Until the 3rd party becomes a viable party (and it’s no where near that), our presidential elections is literally going to be a binary choice.

    whembly (4605df)

  105. 102. I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson. I voted against Hilary and Trump. And again, mathematically speaking, it was NOT a binary choice. The voter’s failure to exercise the third choice did not and does not mean it didn’t exist.

    For the record, I don’t think Gary Johnson is worth a warm bucket of p**s. But he was the third choice, and he was available on all 50 state ballots. To continue to argue this point is…well…pointless.

    Gryph (08c844)

  106. Okay, now we’re arguing about what a binary choice is.

    I’m not a Never Trumper or a Trumpista. Eventually everybody is in the voting booth alone and has to mark the X. That’s all that matters, in the long run. (You still haven’t said who you voted or Gryph, but that’s okay.)

    Patricia (3363ec)

  107. @ rcocean (#9): I’m going to re-ask my question to you at #30, in case you missed it:

    Do you think Melania Trump is attractive, like Marla Maples?

    If so, using your same logic, please explain to us: Why Trump would bed and then pay off Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels in 2006, while married to Melania?

    I submit that the answer to your “why would he?” question, at least as to those two women, was “because he could.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  108. @52. ROFLMAO! Heard this ‘tale of tail’ and his response was classic, Star Trek-‘shields up’-Roy-Cohn-deny-deny-deny.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. This is what poker players and spies call “a tell”: We can deduce that rcocean signed up for and completed the course titled “Trumpian Grammar 101: Almost Random Capitalization” at Trump University.

    Ha. You got me. I’m a terrible typist. And, yes I randomly capitalize letters. I also skip words. Or write “or” for “an” – or write “the the”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  110. Do you think Melania Trump is attractive, like Marla Maples?

    Yes, I think she’s attractive. Our classiest, most fashionable 1st Lady since Jackie O. She also speaks 3 or 4 languages.

    Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels

    He paid Stormy quite a bit of money and had consensual sex. I think. Did Trump ever admit to that? McDougal was a playboy model. From what I can tell all this activity occurred in 2006, and never happened before or after.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  111. I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson. I voted against Hilary and Trump. And again, mathematically speaking, it was NOT a binary choice. The voter’s failure to exercise the third choice did not and does not mean it didn’t exist.

    This is just quibbling over “choice”. In reality, only 2 people were going to win. You need 270 EV to win OR a majority in the House of Representatives and the Libertarians NEVER were going to get that. NEVER. In theory, John Daly can win the British Open in July. In theory, the Libertarians can win the POTUS in 2020. In theory, we could elect Dave Letterman president in 2020.

    Republicans who Refused to support Trump after the nomination – just helped Hillary. Joining the Democrats and attacking Trump in Sept/Oct 2016, just helped Hillary. Ryan and Bush telling Trump to drop out after the “Sex tape” in Oct 2016 just helped Hillary. Egg McMuffin was just trying to take votes away from Trump – and help Hillary. That was the real life of their actions, no matter their intent.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  112. I just don’t understand the point of saying “It wasn’t a binary choice” when only two can be elected? Why not just say, “I didn’t care whether Trump or Hillary got elected. So i wrote in my wife’s name. Or left the ballot blank. Or voted 3rd party”.

    That I believe was the Bushes and Mitt’s position. McCain IRC voted for Hillary.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  113. “As for the two friends she told her story to, that’s not corroboration. It would not even be admitted into evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief.“

    – nk

    What is corroboration, and would likely get into evidence under Rule 413, is the testimony of many or all of the other women Trump has sexually assaulted. Fifteen, was it – as Dave mentioned above?

    If we wanna talk about corroboration and evidence.

    Leviticus (3897cd)

  114. Oh? Fifteen?
    (d) Definition of “Sexual Assault.” In this rule and Rule 415, “sexual assault” means a crime under federal law or under state law (as “state” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 513) involving:

    (1) any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A;

    (2) contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant’s body — or an object — and another person’s genitals or anus;

    (3) contact, without consent, between the defendant’s genitals or anus and any part of another person’s body;

    (4) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from inflicting death, bodily injury, or physical pain on another person; or

    (5) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in subparagraphs (1)–(4).

    nk (dbc370)

  115. rcocean (1a839e) — 6/22/2019 @ 7:54 pm

    Think of it this way. You had a binary choice: to vote for one of the corrupt authoritarian statists offered you by the Duopoly or to vote for a third party candidate and thereby tell the Duopoly you were not tamely rolling over for them.

    Think of what might have happened if ten or fifteen percent of voters had done that. It would not have kept a corrupt authoritarian statist out of the White House, but it would have cut a lot of ground out from under them.

    Kishnevi (573b0b)

  116. 112. Your willful and continuing denial of what constitutes a third possible choice merits no further discussion from me. You lose me in your insistence that there is a dime’s worth of difference between Trump and Hillary. There is not.

    106. The way I voted is quite frankly none of your business. I told you that I rejected the false binary choice of Hillary/Trump. Your insistence that there is a binary choice when there are unexplored alternatives speaks volumes about the state of the American electorate.

    Gryph (08c844)

  117. 115. Thanks Kish. :)

    Gryph (08c844)

  118. FTR
    I come from a Democratic family, and voted for the Democrat five straight times from 1984 to 2000. But my first Presidential vote was for Anderson because I couldn’t stand Carter, and I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential race starting in 2004. My contempt for Hillary was strong enough that was I prepared to vote for anyone who ran against her other than than Trump. So the GOP nominated Trump, and I voted for Johnson.

    Kishnevi (573b0b)

  119. Same to you Gryph.

    You are just too complex and intelligent for me, quite frankly!

    Patricia (3363ec)

  120. You lose me in your insistence that there is a dime’s worth of difference between Trump and Hillary. There is not.

    Hillary would’ve appointed Garland or someone even worse. Trump put Goursach on the SCOTUS. Saying Trump and Hillary would’ve appointed the same type judges is ludicrous. Trump renogitated NAFTA and backed out of the Paris Accords and TPP. Hillary would’ve done the exact opposite.

    Saying there was no difference between Trump and Hillary could make sense, if you add: “on the issues that mattered to me”. Mitt Romney and George Bush, for example, Did NOT care about the Federal Judiciary. So they didn’t care if Hillary won.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  121. McCain voted for Hillary. That’s because he only cared about an globalist foreign policy, international trade and open borders/Amnesty. He really liked Obama. He only pretended to oppose Obama care.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  122. Libertarian is just another word for noting left to lose.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  123. McCain voted for Hillary. That’s because he only cared about an globalist foreign policy, international trade and open borders/Amnesty.

    And Donald Trump endorsed and bankrolled her in 2008 because…?

    Dave (1bb933)

  124. Wow. It’s so cute that you people think it mattered who we voted for back in 2016. Wrong, but cute.

    Gryph (08c844)

  125. “the Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening”.

    But she doesn’t remember the date, and can’t even tell the month – the closest she can do is:

    This has to be in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996 because he’s garbed in a faultless topcoat and I’m wearing my black wool Donna Karan coatdress and high heels but not a coat.

    She remembers what she wore and when she wore it, and that’s how she pins down the year??
    Does this make any sense? Only to people who want us to believe in this “detective work.”

    We’re supposed to believe this?

    Donald Trump was notorious for preferring younger women. That’s why he got divorced from Ivana. But we are supposed to believe that he sa=tated to get overly friendly with her and more, all while trying to buy someone else somthing? She has him laughing at her age, but still interested.

    This is too familiar even down to the women she confided in, who also apparently can’t come up with
    a better clue as to the date.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  126. In Texas, at least where I live, I think judges would not admit evidence of other rapes. It would be deemed too inflammatory and prejudicial.

    DRJ (15874d)

  127. Where I live, a federal judge just admitted testimony from eight (8) other victims of one predator priest accused of sexually abusing kids over a twenty-five year period – the most recent incidents happening in 1992.

    The judge did so under FRE 415, in the face of a 403 challenge.

    (The priest was convicted, for the record.)

    Leviticus (3897cd)

  128. That would be really hard to overcome.

    DRJ (15874d)

  129. The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me

    He doesn’t even wait for her to take off her clothes? But he could wait until she went into the dressing room? And he doesn’t care this is all in the middle of a store? Who would do anything even completely consensual in such circumstances? What is it, after closing? Nobody around? Why even ask her to go into a dressing room? It’s kind of cramped in there, isn’t it? Why not suggest somewhere in a corner hidden by racks of clothing? Because she wo’t get undressed there? Then why doesn’t he wait for her to get undressed?

    But she must be stuck with what she told earlier. Oh, what a tangled tale we weave…

    And she’s a television personality?

    She met him once 8 years before, and that matters?

    No, she has a picture from 1987, but can’t make up a plausible story before 1995 beause she also in the meantime implicated a dress (which has no DNA on it) and the lawyers verified when she wore it.

    There are some lawyers here who have been consulted. She originally maybe wanted to make this notionally happen in 1987 but the dress forced her to move it to 1995. (Because that dress probably was not manufactured until later.)

    in the revolving door, or it could have been a regular door at that time, I can’t recall

    Translation: She originally said revolving door, but the lawyers checked it out, and it wasn’t.

    he’s Alexander the Great ready to loot Babylon.

    as long as somebody is fact checking the doors at Bergdoff’s and the dates dresses were sold, why doesn’t somebody fact check this? Alexander the Great looting Babylon? That’s where Alexander died. It was the Persians who conquered Babylon.

    And these two women? Yes it is Groundhog Day. They didn’t, in turn, tell other women?

    begins talking about how he once thought about buying Bergdorf’s.

    Did he in fact, do that? Talk anywhere to anyone else about buying Bergdorf’s or any other clothing store?

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  130. DRJ @ 126.

    In Texas, at least where I live, I think judges would not admit evidence of other rapes.

    What about other rapes or sexual assault on her by other men?

    She claims to have also been assaulted by Les Moonves and maybe a number of other men. (she saus there were 15 hideous men)

    https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/e-jean-carroll-les-moonves-assault-1203250251

    https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  131. A Libertarian could carry the vote at a Star Trek convention. That’s about it.

    Munroe (306430)

  132. The theory is that it is too hard for a jury to ignore evidence of other rapes and decide this case based solely on the evidence implicating the alleged rapist. But your question involves evidence about the victim, not the alleged rapist. Most jurisdictions exclude evidence of victim’s sexual history for the same reason, although I suspect the defense would argue this is the exception that proves the rule.

    DRJ (15874d)

  133. A Libertarian could carry the vote at a Star Trek convention. That’s about it.

    And a brothel. Or a drug den.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  134. @ rcocean: Thank you for your #110. You clearly now have read my #30, and you’ve acknowledged you believe Melania Trump to be as attractive as Marla Maples. You made a couple of other remarks, in which you seem to have acknowledged that the McDougal and Daniels consensual sex is alleged to have taken place in 2006. Bank records from the Michael Cohen investigation and prosecution prove beyond any doubt, not just a reasonable doubt, that the payoffs were made; Trump doesn’t bother anymore to deny either affair.

    We also know that Trump & Melania had known each other and dated since 1998, and then they were engaged in 2004, and they were married in January 2005. Their son Barron was born on March 20, 2016.

    But you still have not answered my question. I’ll ask it one last time.

    [U]sing your same logic [i.e., that Trump wouldn’t have raped Ms. Carroll because he was already involved with the attractive Ms. Maples], please explain to us why Trump would bed[,] and then [later] pay off[,] Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels in 2006, while married to Melania?

    I submit that the answer to your “why would he?” question, at least as to those two women, was “because he could.”

    If you again dodge this direct question, readers may fairly presume it’s because you have no good answer to it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  135. Follow-up question: You reference Jacqueline Kennedy (Onassis) as being comparable to Melania Trump (or vice versa, perhaps). Why do you think JFK bedded — and then in some cases, “passed around” — so many women during their marriage and even while in the White House?

    My answer would be, again: Because he could. In my opinion, both JFK and Trump, like Bill Clinton, behaved like very bad dogs in a constant rut; they are terrible, despicable role models for American manhood; they were all fundamentally unfit to be POTUS, regardless of any policy positions or actions undertaken in office.

    Do you admire them, rcocean, as great studs?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  136. A Libertarian could carry the vote at a Star Trek convention. That’s about it.

    Which is completely irrelevant to my assertion that Donald Trump is unfit for office.

    Gryph (08c844)

  137. Where I live, a federal judge just admitted testimony from eight (8) other victims of one predator priest accused of sexually abusing kids over a twenty-five year period – the most recent incidents happening in 1992.

    1. Why would there be federal jurisdiction in this case?
    2. Look at the definitions of sexual assault under FRE 413(d). Besides his first wife, what other woman has accused Trump of any of those things?
    3. State courts, which generally have jurisdiction over rape, have their own rules of evidence which may or may not mirror FRE 413, or be stricter or laxer, and if they don’t, they can enact one just for Trump, like Illinois did in the case of Drew Peterson.

    If we want to talk about law and evidence.

    But really! Fifteen women accuse Trump of the offenses described in 413(d)?

    nk (dbc370)

  138. In #135, I wish I had written “very bad husbands in a constant rut.”

    I apologize to all dogs, even the bad ones in rut, for the unfair slur by association with Trump, Clinton, and JFK.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  139. According to the New York Times story, when a reporter pointed out the picture (which I think is in he book to try to back up E Jean Carroll’s claim that Trump recognized her – he said “Give me a break” and pointed out that his coat was on and his back was toward the camera.

    Indeed, he appears to be talking to her husband, not her, and he’s also there with Ivana. This woman is really a bystander.

    It’s not out of the question that Donald trump wouuld be interested in other women than his wife, either in 1987 or in 1995, what’s peculiar about this claim is that she was older than he was, and that she saved the dress before anyone had ever heard of Monica Lewinsky, and that he gets her into a dressing room but then doesn’t wait for her to start undressing herself, and that he does this in a store during business hours, and that he outright starts to rape her. Even speaking about once wanting to buy the store, doesn’t make this more credible. He didn’t buy the store. He doesn’t own it.

    There have one or two other accusations like that, (always only attempted rape, although in this case it might meet the legal definition of rape) with problems with the stories. One of them has Melania meeting an accusing woman in the street later, and asking her why she doesn’t come over annmore, something Melania has denied.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/10/melania-trump-demands-people-retract-three-details-about-her-from-latest-story.html

    “The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, nor have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly,” the letter reads. “Your publication of the false statements is actionable and gives rise to claims of damages.”

    And that woman also has back-up witnesses.

    Six of them to prove that she and Melania were friends, including one of them who was there at the time Natasha Stoynoff ran into Melania Trump in the street:

    https://www.thecut.com/2016/10/six-witnesses-say-people-writer-melania-trump-were-friends.html

    But on Tuesday, People produced six witnesses to corroborate Stoynoff’s story, and one, Lisa Herz, was there during the alleged run-in….

    ….Five more witnesses — two of Stoynoff’s editors at People, one co-worker, a former journalism professor, and a long-time friend — said Stoynoff had confided in them about the encounter with Melania Trump.

    The accusers seem to come in three’s – one victim, and two people she told the story to, and also that Donald Trump knows the woman.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  140. My answer would be, again: Because he could. In my opinion, both JFK and Trump, like Bill Clinton, behaved like very bad dogs in a constant rut; they are terrible, despicable role models for American manhood

    Trump is 72 y/o. There is Zero evidence, he behaved in this “Rutting Behavior” past 2006. Which is 13 Years ago. I don’t listen to Hugh Stern’s Radio Progam. I don’t live on the East Coast on in NYC. I didn’t follow the New York City tabloids in the 80s, 90s, early 2000s. All this talk about what a sexual reprobate Trump was – 25 years ago, means nothing to me. And i”m not alone. Which is why he was elected POTUS.

    Clinton was getting Lewinsky’s in the WHITE HOUSE. JFK was banging WH Interns in WHITE HOUSE. . Trump? Well, Trump may have had a thing with Stormy Davis or a Playboy Model 13 years ago. When he was a private citizen.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  141. Clinton had Brodderick. Clinton had Paula Jones. Clinton had Lewsinky. Clinton had Jennifer flowers. We’re talking sexual harassment, and rape. And these women were Democrats!

    JFK was having sex with anything that moved. He told Harold Macmillan that he had to have sex everyday or he had headaches! Gangster molls, foreign agents, prostitutes, WH Interns, whoever. While he was POTUS.

    FDR was having an affair with Lucy Mercer, who was with him when he died. He was also banging the Queen of Norway. Of course, he was married to Eleanor – poor man – and couldn’t get a divorce.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  142. Thank you for that clarification, rcocean (#140). I shall mark this day as a day when you wrote something frankly disapproving of Donald J. Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  143. “[T]hrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me” is a palpable touché. But everybody knows that by now, whether they have personally experienced Trump’s “smaller than average” weewee or not.

    nk (dbc370)

  144. please explain to us why Trump would bed[,] and then [later] pay off[,] Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels in 2006, while married to Melania?

    Obviously, because as a PRIVATE CITIZEN and BILLIONAIRE he wanted to spare his wife any embarrassment. Just as a speculation. I assume that Melania being pregnant or recovering from child birth was in no mood for sexual relations. Hence, Trump staying a bit. Not admirable AT ALL. But that could be the reason. Curious that all these liaisons seem to end in 2006.

    But that’s just gossip.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  145. I find Carroll very WEIRD. What’s all the laughing about? Oh, Carroll: I’m being raped, but I’m laughing. How, the heck is Trump supposed to know she’s saying “NO” when she’s LAUGHING ?

    Of course, she’s some sort of Liberal freak columnist who’s trying to sell a book. Who knows what’s in her mind? Assuming she has one.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  146. 111.

    You need 270 EV to win OR a majority in the House of Representatives

    A majority of the House voting by states, with some states not voting because they are evenly divided, but a majority (now 26, because 25 is a tie) still being needed.

    This works out to a candidate needing something like 57% of the House to win, with, however, some votes counting much more than others, and the number of crucial votes small. And it’s 52% of the states.

    And there are only 3 candidates to choose from, so a few faithless electors, acting together, might give the House another choice, if the Electoral Vote was closely divided, and the third party candidate say, won one small state or two.

    For Vice President, the Senate votes and it chooses between only 2 candidates. In 1824, John C. Calhoun had already been elected outright as vice president, and in 1800 there was a different system in place. While the House actually in some cases could choose among five, in the case of a tie, where both had more than a majority (Electors voted for two candidates but couldn’t specify who was to be president and who was to be vice president) it could choose only among two. So they had to choose only between Jefferson and Burr with the loser becoming vice president.

    If the election got thrown in the House again it would be an important factor that if the House could not make a decision, the Senate’s decision as to who was vice president would matter a great deal (cf 20th amendment) until the House decided – and as I said, as a practical matter, about 57% of the memers of the House would be needed.

    A third party candidate has a very long longshot chance to be chosen as president by the House, but the thid party vice presidential candidate is an even longer shot to become vice president, as the tricket would have to come in a least second in the electoral vote.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  147. 145. rcocean (1a839e) — 6/23/2019 @ 1:09 pm

    How, the heck is Trump supposed to know she’s saying “NO” when she’s LAUGHING ?

    She’s giving him a legal defense. (although she does says she resists, and eventually he gets the message apparently.)

    She doesn’t want to have to testify. Of course the statute of limitations has expired anyway.

    One absurd thing in this whole episode is anybody making a big deal, either way, of Bergdorf Goodman not having any videotape.

    If she never complained, why should they have saved it? Why should anyone ever have looked at it? Do any stores maintain a quarter century’s worth of CCTV footage? Even ten years? Or two years? Yes, they could be worried about claims of someone being charged too much, or someone wanting a return of something they didn’t buy there, but how long would they keep that? Or is somebody worried about there being any fotage of how the store looked at that time?

    Of course, she’s some sort of Liberal freak columnist who’s trying to sell a book. Who knows what’s in her mind? Assuming she has one.

    Trying to affect his re-election chances, and/or help sell a book, but not wanting this to go any further?

    Or perhaps she hopes to file a lawsuit for loss of consortium: (only file one maybe)

    “Whether it’s my age, the fact that I haven’t met anyone fascinating enough over the past couple of decades … or if it’s the blot of the real-estate tycoon, I can’t say. But I have never had sex with anybody ever again.”

    What I would want to know is who else may have been contacted to back up this story in some way, but refused?

    And in the course of preparing the book, did her story change? That may account for some of the oddities.

    She says that Trump recognized her from TV (not because they met, so what’s the point about their maybe having been in the same room at one time?) She says she didn’t agree to try on the lace bodysuit. Then why does she go into the dressing room??

    Why does she save the coatdress? In reality, because she saved a lot of old clothing, and she picked this out as “evidence” when maybe somebody wanted it. She says she put it again only for the picture of her wearing it on the cover New York magazine. Sounds like somebody wanted an illustration. That’s reality, and maybe this forced her to change the year, but in the story why did she save it?

    And the bit about Trump saying he had wanted to buy the store? It may have originally been Trump saying that he did own the store.

    Bergdorf Goodman, at 754 Fifth Avenue, is within a block or so of Trump Tower, so maybe that’s why she puts Trump there.

    I can’t find anything related to Trump ever having wanted to, or talked about buyig Bergdorff Goodman. It’s part of the Neiman Marcus Group and has been since 1987. It had been sold by Andrew oodman in 1972 to what eventually became Carter Hawley Hale Stores (while he remainwed its landlord and lived in a Penthouse apartment above the store) Theer were some takeover attempts in the 1980s which resulted in the Neiman Marcus Group being spun off. Now Donald Trump used to pretend to be interested in taking ove companies at one point, but I think she’s making it up. Of course she could claim Donald Trump made that up in 195 or 1996.

    . The new company was headquartered in Dallas, Texas,

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  148. @ Sammy Finkleman,

    He doesn’t even wait for her to take off her clothes?

    You really have to stop trying to make this be a valid point of defense for a man who is accused of rape. A man intent on sexually assaulting a woman, typically doesn’t wait for the woman to undress first.

    Dana (bb0678)

  149. She’s giving him a legal defense. (although she does says she resists, and eventually he gets the message apparently.)

    Another of these so-called “sexual assaults” where the woman didn’t care enough to file charges OR saying anything at the time OR say anything when the man was being elected/appointed to an important office BUT suddenly is very important now. NOW, she just HAS TO SPEAK OUT, because of the PAIN. Even though, it happened 20, 25, 30, 35 years ago.

    Yeah right. You go girl.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  150. It needs to be repeated again, the only difference between kinky sex and what Carroll says is Rape is “Intent”. Its her state of mind, that makes it rape. As opposed to just weird sex or “bad sex”. Personally, my thinking is that it must not have been much of a “rape” if she didn’t care to talk about it 25 years. But then, I’m a MAN – and as Susan Brownmiller once wrote: All men are rapists.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  151. A man intent on sexually assaulting a woman, typically doesn’t wait for the woman to undress first.

    True, but the clothes have to come off some time. Usually they’re ripped off. Did that happen?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  152. Just a reminder. She was 52 YEARS OLD -when this supposedly happened. Maybe that’s why she was laughing.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  153. It’s “consent,” actually, rcocean, and whether it’s been manifested, and even if so, whether it’s been withdrawn. It’s the objective words and signs and circumstances, not the victim’s internal thinking, that are examined. Without consent, any sexual contact is, in most states’ laws, sexual assault, even if the victim is drugged.

    The crime does have a specific intent element, but that’s part of what the state must prove against the defendant.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  154. monica showalter actually took the scenario at face value, and found the particulars dubious, in several respects, but we must presume he is guilty until proven innocent,

    narciso (d1f714)

  155. The crime does have a specific intent element, but that’s part of what the state must prove against the defendant.

    How do you interpret LAUGHING when having sex with a women? Just curious.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  156. Wouldn’t Pres. Trump be the one to answer that question (#154), rcocean? He’s who stands accused, and my guess is that he’s got lots of experience with women laughing when he drops his trousers.

    Laughter during intercourse could be interpreted many ways, depending on the circumstances. Ms. Carroll’s presumed explanation is that she was overcome by the irony of it happening to her yet again, at her then age. As some condemned, even ones who are not at all brave, literally laugh in the face of death — as Saddam did, when his hangmen began shouting “Moqtada! Moqtada!” — some people laugh while becoming victims of violent crime.

    Note, however, that I began my comments to this post by saying I didn’t find her story very credible, but for this particular reason. Rather, it’s the absence of details on more explicit consent, or explicit refusal thereof, that make me skeptical.

    This was likewise true of Dr. Ford’s accusations about Judge Kavanaugh, and as things played out, Dr. Ford was never asked any of the pertinent questions (of which there are literally hundreds) before the public eye, while I’m confident her own lawyers asked her all of them, and used everything they thought remotely helpful in her public accounts. Ms. Carroll likewise “pre-buts” some likely questions, but other and more obvious issues she utterly ignores, at least in this telling. Admittedly, she’d peddling a book, and doesn’t want to give away the meat (if any) while demonstrating the sizzle. It’s Holmes’ that didn’t bark, multiplied many times.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  157. *but not for this particular reason [the laughter], I ought to have written.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  158. *And Holmes’ dog. (See, it not only didn’t bark, it disappeared while I was editing.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  159. All these allegations by so many women. Perhaps the police could send a sketch artist to all the accusers and have them describe the presidents tools and then compare sketches to determine accuracy.

    mg (8cbc69)

  160. Laughter during intercourse could be interpreted many ways, depending on the circumstances.

    I’m not a legal expert on rape. Or anything else. So, I’m curious as to what the Legal standard is. Can a woman say nothing to indicate she doesn’t consent, or make weird ambiguous laughing noises, and later claim she was raped? Because she didn’t say “YES”?

    Unless a women signs a legal contract, can she later claim she didn’t REALLY consent – no matter what her behavior? You tell me.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  161. @65. Context is everything. Back in the day- particularly when the photo was taken– John Johnson was a very big name and face in daily/nightly local NYC TeeVee broadcast news so it was natural for huckster Trump to gravitate to him to press the flesh and cultivate PR w/Ivana. Johnson’s wife was just there on his arm.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  162. Just a reminder. She was 52 YEARS OLD -when this supposedly happened. Maybe that’s why she was laughing.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 6/23/2019 @ 3:12 pm

    What is your problem? A 52 year old woman is not near death, rcocean. Melanie Trump is 49. So in a year or two, she’ll be an attractive, undesirable matron or something?

    Further, amoral men of means and power who assault and harass women do so because the opportunity presents itself and they can.

    Dana (bb0678)

  163. Under federal law, if you initiate a sexual act without the other party’s consent, you are guilty of sexual assault. You don’t get to try and see whether they tell you to stop. If unlawful force is used, it’s rape.

    You can read the explicit definition of a sexual act, but it’s pretty much what you expect. If definition of sexual act isn’t met, for instance if the contact is through clothing, or with other parts of the body, then it’s aggravated sexual contact, which is also a crime.

    I imagine federal law wouldn’t govern in this case, but it’s probably similar to state laws.

    Dave (1bb933)

  164. Laughing in those circumstance could be an hysterical reaction to an unbelievably awful situation that happens in such a split second moment, that you before you can’t even wrap your mind around the awfulness of it. You can never really be ready with a proper verbal response because you never really expect it to happen.

    Dana (bb0678)

  165. Maybe the fact that she was meeting with lisa bloom who was paying women to accuse trump should raise questions

    Narciso (e49d7b)

  166. Dave, look again. That’s part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  167. (But yes, it tracks most states’ laws.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  168. @ rcocean: I already answered that question, in #153, in response to your #150 (which was badly wrong). Again:

    No, the determination is not made solely based on words, although the words used are very important. But if, for example, with saying a word, a woman grabbed a man by the hand and pulled him into a dressing room behind her, turned her back to him, and lifted her skirt, that would be conduct from which most juries would infer nonverbal consent. Generally speech trumps (pun acknowledged) non-verbal conduct and circumstances, and “no” means “no,” absent some explicit agreement in advance that the parties are engaging in roleplay fantasy (which ought to involve a “safe word” that can substitute for “no”).

    It’s entirely fact specific determination, based not just on words but non-verbal communication and circumstantial evidence. And as I said, in cases in which consent is in issue (and they’re frequent), there are always hundreds of questions that must be asked and answered, even if only to establish that the victim’s answer is “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  169. Moreover, a person — this isn’t limited to women — cannot contract away her or his right to say “No.” Even if that’s tried, it’s overriden by a simple verbal statement consisting of a single word: “No.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  170. This thread has gone all over the place, so let’s throw a fish in the gallimaufry too. There seems to be no limit to the alternative/non-traditional marriage fad: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/6/23/18714290/wedding-ring-steelhead-should-have-put-a-ring-on-it

    nk (dbc370)

  171. And on the Father Pfleger front
    https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2019/6/22/18701155/priest-michael-pfleger-says-yo-yo-ma-concert-cancels-farrakhan-speech-anti-semitic-st-sabina

    Despite the headline, the cancellation might be due more to the CSO.

    Kishnevi (385fa4)

  172. Bizarre, nk.
    Catch and release would have been my move.

    mg (8cbc69)

  173. What is your problem? A 52 year old woman is not near death, rcocean. Melanie Trump is 49. So in a year or two, she’ll be an attractive, undesirable matron or something?

    I would assume that in a world dominated by the patriarchy, where all MEN are potential rapists, that a 52 y/o women would be glad to be too old to the subject of such shameful behavior. But instead, saying a 52 y/o middling-looking women is too old to be raped by a 47 y/o handsome Billionaire who can have 20 other women, younger and better looking, at the drop of a hat, is an INSULT. Well, Okey-dokey.

    I can only project my own standards of behavior. I would never be overcome by lust and rape a woman. But if I ever did, it wouldn’t be go after an average looking – 52 y/o short-haired Yenta Giraffe – in a Department Store. But maybe Trump is different. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  174. 52 Year old woman – I would Die if I ever raped. I’d kill myself.

    Man: You’re OK. Too old.

    52 Year old Women: What an Insult. I’m rapable!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  175. It’s spectacularly ignorant and insensitive, rcocean.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  176. Who says lust has anything to do with rape?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  177. Moreover, a person — this isn’t limited to women — cannot contract away her or his right to say “No.” Even if that’s tried, it’s overriden by a simple verbal statement consisting of a single word: “No.”

    Thanks for response Beldar. Most legal opinion can be boiled down to “It depends”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  178. Who says lust has anything to do with rape?

    Who says it doesn’t? Yeah, that’s right. A 47 y/o Billionaire went after a 52 y/o Giraffe and committed the crime of rape that would land him in the slammer for 20 years, because he was on a “Power Trip”. Okey-Dokey. Any talk of rape of motivation is worthless since we’re mixing up two completely different kinds of crimes. Classic “Stranger rape” and “Date Rape”. Remember Eldridge Cleaver? Trying to figure out his motivation and that of some college kid who’s overcome by lust when in Betty Sue’s Dorm Room Bed is a fools errand.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  179. To bring this back to reality. No other President has been treated in this fashion. Any women can accuse Trump of sexual abuse or worse, and the Democrats/MSM will throw it on the front pages. That’s why more and more of the 47% of the USA that voted for Trump no longer cares what the MSM Lies about.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  180. rcocean, dude — you really need to go back and brush up on the first rule of holes.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  181. Exactly, Kevin M. Exactly.

    Further, a big problem with this is how personal politics have influenced making a reasonable assessment of sexual assault. First, are the victims left or right, and is it a Democrat or Republican official being accused. That comes first in the analysis. If this were Bill Clinton in the dressing room and the writer a right-leaning woman, would these absolute judgements of her making it all up be made with more restraint, and more thought about whether the behavior fit a pattern? Why was Juanita Broaddrick believed by the same people who are adamant about Carroll’s untruthfulness?

    Dana (bb0678)

  182. You’ve written two correct statements on the comments to this post, rcocean. One (#159) was: “I’m not a legal expert on rape. Or anything else.” You’ve now demonstrated that to the abundant satisfaction of every reader here. You don’t need to demonstrate it any more.

    The other (#140) was: “Because [Trump] could. In my opinion, both JFK and Trump, like Bill Clinton, behaved like very bad dogs in a constant rut; they are terrible, despicable role models for American manhood.” And you were quoting me.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  183. Gosh I guess the standards of evidence, I used to give more benefit of the doubt but since Duke and UVA I’ve become more skeptical.

    Narciso (e49d7b)

  184. “No other President has been treated in this fashion.”

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794

    Davethulhu (bc6fa6)

  185. Good comment Davethulhu.

    Trump definitely could dish out baseless accusations. And unfortunately for the GOP, these accusations of sexual assault have Trump’s own general admission he enjoyed doing these sorts of things to women as a form of corroboration. We can’t know if this woman was victimized, but we know many women were because Trump bragged. We know that they didn’t come forward, because Trump bragged about that too.

    Case closed.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  186. It depends because people react in different and unpredictable ways, even to rape:

    Why I Froze and Smiled During My Sexual Assault
    ***
    The Brain’s Responses to Threats Are Complicated

    Most people know the phrase “fight or flight.” We’ve come to rely on it as an explanation for our behavior in times of high stress. The idea was first introduced by Walter B. Cannon in 1915. He observed that provoked animals released adrenaline, which gave their body the extra energy it needed to escape from or attack their predators. He proposed that human bodies work the exact same way. In some ways, he was right, but we’ve made many advancements and discoveries in the past century that shed light on our very complex response to stress. It turns out that humans don’t just run or fight when they’re scared.

    I propose we get rid of this phrase entirely. It’s a false idea about instinct.

    Believing fight or flight is our only response to threatening situations makes it easy to victim-blame. It becomes natural to think that if we’re only programmed to fight or run away, then anyone who doesn’t clearly wasn’t very threatened. What scientists and psychologists now understand is that the brain has a very intricate system of self-preservation. The first line of defense at certain times is not to immediately pump adrenaline but to slow down the prefrontal cortex.

    Think of your brain like an electric grid. During a survival situation, you don’t lose total power to your prefrontal cortex — the area of the brain responsible for higher cognitive functions like decision-making, planning, and communicating emotion — but it does start to run on backup generators with certain non-essential functions shut down to conserve energy.

    My prefrontal cortex was offline, and I didn’t have a choice to express my emotions because my brain had redirected power from that system.

    This means when you’re faced with a threatening situation, you lose power to the part of your brain that can help you consciously decide what you should do next, understand how the situation will affect your future, make a detailed or complex escape plan, or tell your abuser that you’re not okay. It can happen instantly and often without your control. A different response can be re-trained, but it takes more than people just telling you to defend yourself when the time comes.

    The brain takes that extra power to energize other parts deemed more necessary for survival, like the amygdala, which we have no conscious control over. It receives input from various parts of the brain and then sends action signals to other parts. It’s like middle management with tenure. When your amygdala receives the input that you’re in a threatening situation, it sends out the troops as necessary. But it does far more than just trigger adrenaline; it worksin tandem with the hippocampus to assess the type of threat and respond in the most appropriate way. The hippocampus is your functional memory bank — the intelligent data storage the amygdala pulls from to figure out if it’s got a security protocol already in place for the type of threat.

    Depending on the threat assessment, several things can happen in your brain and body, and this is why the oversimplicity of the fight or flight response is an outdated way of thinking. It’s possible you will be flooded with superhero levels of adrenaline that make you physically stronger and faster than you’ve ever been in your life. It’s also possible that your brain will see no way out and then activate your parasympathetic nervous system, which decreases heart rate and muscle tone, effectively freezing you in place.

    And if you’ve ever had a similar threatening experience, your amygdala and hippocampus might deploy a remembered security protocol you previously created to cope that involves fawning, complying, or even laughing. 

    DRJ (15874d)

  187. Dana: Why was Juanita Broaddrick believed by the same people who are adamant about Carroll’s untruthfulness?

    For one thing, Juanita Broderick was going public in an atmosphere in which she could not expect to be believed, but the bias is all in the other direction for E. Jean Carroll. And she writes about six men (who assaulted her?) in her book, one of whom is Les Moonves. And a total of 15 who are hideous.

    And then Bill Clinton was much better at coverups and at lying. And Juaita Broderick, and all or most of the other women he was involved with, were in some way beholden to Bill Clinton. She owned a nursing home and was a campaign contributor. There may be something about that she’s still not telling. And he did it in a private setting.

    SF: He doesn’t even wait for her to take off her clothes?

    Dana:

    You really have to stop trying to make this be a valid point of defense for a man who is accused of rape. A man intent on sexually assaulting a woman, typically doesn’t wait for the woman to undress first.

    But he supposedly wited until she got into the dressing room. Why did he wait for that? Because there’s no possibility of cameras looking inside the dressing room? But people could hear! Somebody might walk by.

    rcoean @152: Usually they’re ripped off. Did that happen?

    Not in her version of the story. In her version none of her clothing came off at all.

    He pushes her against the wall, starts forcibly kissing her, and she pushes him back and laughs.

    Then he takes hold of both her arms, pushes her against the wall again, and holds her in place with his shoulders while pulling down her tights by putting his hand under her dress. (how’d he even know she was wearing only one layer of clothing?)

    Then she tries to stomp his foot with her high heels, and tries to push him off with one hand while holding on to her purse with the other, and finally uses her knee to push him out of the dressing room, (good judo move?) and runs out of the dressing room and the store. So fast, she forgot whether she used the elevator or the escalator. (if she’s running away, she’s not going to wait for the elevator, but more people would see her on the escalator, and maybe a lawyer thinks that’s a problem. But why?)

    There are no consequences.

    It does sound like something that could come out of a bad novel.

    And my question again – what is this issue about a videotape? It is so improbable that there would be any videotape that this question must have been raised by a lawyer because who else would want to check that out?

    It’s equally crazy for Donald Trump to thank the store for confirming there is no videotape.

    Sammy Finkelman (9974e8)

  188. This reminds me of the Kavanaugh thing, where some woman “Remembers” a sexual assault from 20-35 years ago – and can’t even establish that she and the assailant knew each other. It both cases, we have no contemporaneous supporting evidence. We have no clothes ripped. No physical marks. No cries for help or calls to the police. No evidence other than their word. In the Kavanaugh case, she ran out of the house, and no one noticed or cared. In this case, she ran out of Department store with no one noticing or caring.

    In both cases its a man grinding his body and feebly trying to take off some clothes. Blaisy ford at least had the sense to make Kavanaugh drunk to explain her escape. Carrol wants us to believe she physcially fought off Trump who must outweigh her by 80 lbs.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  189. “Why was Juanita Broaddrick believed by the same people who are adamant about Carroll’s untruthfulness?”
    Dana (bb0678) — 6/23/2019 @ 8:01 pm

    It was only one side who created the #BelieveWomen nonsense, which essentially means you trust the woman not the evidence. There was no #WomenLie movement on the other side.

    Munroe (f9da21)

  190. well mr. donald the president also known as trump denied it and that’s good enough for me because he never lies and that’s why i love him

    nk (dbc370)

  191. i do miss happyfeet

    mg (8cbc69)

  192. i do miss happyfeet

    mg (8cbc69) — 6/24/2019 @ 9:54 am

    I can’t imagine why.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  193. sometimes the truth is inconvenient,

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/24/hope-hickss-testimony-destroyed-trump-russia-collusion-narrative/

    narciso (d1f714) — 6/24/2019 @ 9:23 am

    The Mueller report already did that.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  194. Reading more online it seems that Carroll just bumped into Trump while he was going into the Dept Store. Addressing her as “that advice lady” he asked her to help him buy lingerie for his girlfriend. Carroll says she wanted to get Trump to put on the lingerie, so she went with him to the Lingerie Dept and found an empty dressing room. Then the attack. Carroll says there was no sales clerks around and she “ran out” AND she never talked to Trump again.

    Its also confirmed that she’s a hardcore feminist. Hates men. If a great,liberal Democrat drives around in a polka-dotted Electric car and “only will visit cities named after women”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  195. Reading more online it seems that Carroll just bumped into Trump while he was going into the Dept Store. Addressing her as “that advice lady” he asked her to help him buy lingerie for his girlfriend. Carroll says she wanted to get Trump to put on the lingerie, so she went with him to the Lingerie Dept and found an empty dressing room. Then the attack. Carroll says there was no sales clerks around and she “ran out” AND she never talked to Trump again.

    Its also confirmed that she’s a hardcore feminist. Hates men. If a great,liberal Democrat drives around in a polka-dotted Electric car and “only will visit cities named after women”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  196. She trying to get all her “gal pals” to go on a harassment tour where they will visit all the places that men have harassed women in NYC. In 2015, she hated Bill O’Reilly so much, she shot his picture with a Bow and Arrow.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  197. In the link @199 Monica showalter writes:

    I know a woman that Trump flirted with in 1996 who was quite a bit younger and far more of a “looker.” I remember she sent me emails about it because she was disgusted that he was married, but all the same, he never went beyond flirting; flirtaciousness was actually his limit for those not giving him any encouragement. It’s very hard to think he’d be different with someone less known.

    Meanwhile, I used to be the most enthusiastic of Bergdorf shoppers at that time. I was young, fresh out of college, and had a great job that permitted shopping jaunts there in between trips to the Met and meetings at the United Nations. And yep, I shopped there all the time.

    She says the black Donna Karan coatdress is correct for the time, and tgeh generalstyle but not the shoes. (But then the dress would be correct either way – she’d make up the story around the dress and she’s not claiming anything else is from that day)

    She also says Carroll has got Bergdorf down as the world’s most exclusive department store but it as running lots of sales then.

    And:

    There’s also the details about the lingerie department, which, Carroll says, was probably with the evening gowns and bathing suits. I don’t even remember a lingerie department in those years. I bought pretty much everything from Bergdorf – the designer stuff on sale on the 6th floor (man, did I score on the Donna Karan!), and lots of clothes and shoes from the young women’s department on the fifth floor, always looking at the sale racks first for bargains. I bought baby clothes on the 6th floor for friends and relatives with new babies (how I loved sending those Bergdorf packages, exquisitely packed, with really fancy baby dresses!) and I bought beautiful notebooks and vases and fancy candies on the 7th floor. But lingerie? The idea that it would be packed with evening gowns and bathing suits sounds like a Macys department store set-up, not a Bergdorf’s one. I had to look it up. Sure enough, this retail history shows that the lingerie department barely existed at the time, it was on the 2nd floor with the men’s wear. And it was insignificant. A barely there lingerie department for shopping for lingerie? Why would Trump pick such a place to shop for lingerie when there were so many other competitors with far bigger selections, starting with Saks down the street? (Which would have been about as close to Trump Tower (built 1983) as Bergdorf’s.)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  198. From Monica Showalter (Link @199)

    The idea that it [the area with women’s lingerie] would be packed with evening gowns and bathing suits sounds like a Macys department store set-up, not a Bergdorf’s one. I had to look it up. Sure enough, this [no link there -SF] retail history shows that the lingerie department barely existed at the time, it was on the 2nd floor with the men’s wear. And it was insignificant.

    Which explains maybe something in the New York Magazine second section [The Cut] article:

    https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

    I have no recollection where lingerie is in that era of Bergdorf’s, but it seems to me it is on a floor with the evening gowns and bathing suits, and when the man and I arrive — and my memory now is vivid — no one is present.

    Translation: She actually did have a “recollection” but she must have been questioned by lawyers and others when it was fact checked,
    perhaps somewhere on this website it was found to be wrong.

    She now says she has no recollection. Because in fact it wasn’t near the evening gowns and bathing suits. And she had no idea what floor to put the incident on.

    She’s probably describing another store, or a typical store layout, which just doesn’t happen to fit Bergdorf Goodman at that point in time.

    The source for the lingerie department being insignifcant in 1996 is:

    https://www.racked.com/2014/9/10/7577673/betty-halbreich-book-bergdorf-goodman

    (Bergdorf Goodman’s once-legendary lingerie department became inconsequential when people started living together before marriage. Why spend a lot of money when there’s no surprise?)”

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  199. There’s another real problem with her story thatE. Jean Carroll discloses has to mention in the article:

    There shouldn’t have been an available dressing room that she and Donald Trump could go to
    alone together.

    …And the other odd thing is that a dressing-room door was open. In Bergdorf’s dressing rooms, doors are usually locked until a client wants to try something on

    And that I presume would mean that a sales clerk would go with them to the dressing room. And this is during a time in the day when there’s practically nobody else in the store. (She doesn’t say that but that’s needed to explain the lack of people around.)

    Now of course you can say, Donald Trump had been wandering through the store for some time and had noticed this open dressing room where he could trap her. (left over from the previous night maybe, or shall we say maybe there was a fire alarm or some other commotion just before both of them got to the storen and everybody had rushed out and a dressing room was left open? No, Trump neded some timeto find the open dressing room. Early in the morning?)

    More likely, she rarely or never was in Bergdorf Goodman at that time and that’s why she doesn’t know things like what else was near the lingerie department, or what kind of exit and entrance doors the store had, or what floor she was on because I suspect she didn’t supply that information either.

    The first odd thing was no attendants, but that actually is maybe not so unlikely for 1996 maybe.

    And the whole thing with the security cameras: That must come from lawyers. I don’t know if that includes Donald Trump’s lawyers, who may have been contacted, (Trump seems so happy that there;s no security footage. Was it claimed at some point? What’s the back story behind that?)

    It is ridiculous that anyone should imagine that any footage should still exist! Lawyers, however, sometimes take no chances…

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  200. SF – Thanks for the info. Basically nothing about her is credible. She’s a flake, a leftist, a Trump hater, and she has ZERO good reasons for sitting on this story about Trump through 2016 and only NOW bringing it up. Except she has a book coming out.

    People who make up these a Republican attacked me stories all do the following:

    1) Set the sexaul assult way in the past.
    2) State there are no witnesses
    3) Make it a MINOR sexual assault – no physical injury, ripped clothes, penetration etc.
    4) State the attacker was easily beaten off
    5) Have themselves escape unnoticed.

    By doing so, they can explain away why never filed charges or Said anything AT THE TIME. And also making it impossible to disprove 100 percent. Blaisy-Ford couldn’t even be pinned down to a year, time or place! She was very vague and cagey, because she know Kavanaugh could come back and say “Wait a minute, I was on vacation at that time”.

    Caroll’s seems to have done the same thing.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  201. Make it a MINOR sexual assault – no physical injury, ripped clothes, penetration etc.

    That’s not what she says.

    Dave (1bb933)

  202. 203.

    6. Say there are people they told at the time (usually) Ford didn’t but she said she mentioned it some years before, but it’s not clear what the version was then, and she said there were otehr people at the gathering.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  203. That’s not what she says.

    Yes, that’s what she says.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  204. 204. It is probably disputable as to whether or not it included the crime of rape. But all this is notional.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  205. So a sexual assault with: no ripped clothes, no threat of lethal force, penetration, no physical injuries or marks of any kind is a MAJOR sexual assault. Which of course would make actual Rape, what? SUPER MAJOR sexual assault?

    I knew when i wrote that people would start quibbling over the word MINOR, because ALL sexual is a major event. Except, we need to differentiate between degrees of sexual assault, otherwise stealing a kiss is equal to full-blown stranger-on-stranger rape with a gun involved.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  206. where is julia?

    mg (8cbc69)

  207. Make it a MINOR sexual assault – no physical injury, ripped clothes, penetration etc.

    That’s not what she says.

    Yes, that’s what she says.

    Reading is fundamental:

    I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his p*nis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.

    Dave (1bb933)

  208. @ rcocean: I’d rather not add you to the list of commenters I filter.

    But if you persist making arguments about things which you’ve demonstrated, and even admitted, you have no expertise about — rape and sexual assault being among those — I’m going to grow too weary of your offensive blather. The law — and it varies from place to place and time for time — has distinctions about consent, distinctions about what sorts of assaults are sexual assaults, which of those are aggravated, which of those are rape, and so forth. You are less than ignorant about those; you’re sure you’re right, and crash on through the underbrush like an enraged hippo trying to quote Shakespeare. Just stop it. You’re a genuine embarrassment to the male species on this topic.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  209. > Most people know the phrase “fight or flight.”

    the interesting thing about this, to me, is that psychologists specializing in trauma will tell you that there are actually three responses: fight, *freeze*, or flight. The tendency towards one or the other appears to be a result of neural wiring and is *detectable in mice*, which suggests that it’s an innate aspect of mammalian nervous systems.

    My trauma response has historically been a ‘freeze’ response.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  210. It is one thing to express skepticism or doubt about the truth of the accusation. None of us know for sure what happened. It is possible to reasonably believe that the whole story is a fabrication, that it is truthful in every detail, or anything in between.

    But to suggest that the behavior described – if it happened – is no big deal and should be dismissed or excused … that is utterly despicable.

    Dave (1bb933)

  211. It’s not true that some things are a “he said-she said” situation because there are all sosrts of surrounding circumstances and collateral questions.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1)

  212. Yesterday’s NYT had a full-page ad for “To Kill A Mockingbird” playing now at 225 West 44th Street. With Jeff Daniels as Atticus Finch. Is that “Broadway” or “off-Broadway”?

    nk (dbc370)

  213. “By the way, honey, you’re a little too old to be running around without your clothes on.”

    Guess:

    [ ] Donald Trump
    [ ] JR Ewing

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  214. @215. It’s a very “Tony” neighborhood. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  215. sexual assault is an exceedingly serious thing, the nxim case, the larry nassar one, Jeffrey Epstein’s Tiberius in capri type resort, but since 2006, from durham to Charlottesville to morningside heights, it is common to be cavalier with such charges, as we saw last fall, a false accusation buttressed by layers of publicists, lobbyists and attorneys can be highly corrosive, and accountability has just begun to established,

    narciso (d1f714)

  216. More than one comrade here has characterized any unwanted touch of a woman by a man as “sexual assault”. And I mean two who have commented on this thread. When they should know that “sexual assault” in the law is Newspeak for “rape”. If everything is rape, then nothing is rape.

    nk (dbc370)

  217. More than one comrade here has characterized any unwanted touch of a woman by a man as “sexual assault”.

    I may have claimed that, but I was quoting verbatim from the following definition on the Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women website:

    Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

    As the Wayback Machine link above shows, the definition on that page has since been changed to the much more generic:

    The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.

    I quoted what I suspect is the only statutory definition in federal law, namely the USCMJ, above. Under that definition, “sexual assault” is essentially non-consensual skin-on-skin contact with someone else’s private parts.

    Dave (1bb933)

  218. 212. E. Jean Carroll claimed today that she didn’t freeze. She was on two TV shows. She seems to want to be seen as a fighter.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  219. maybe we could get linda fairstein to comment, it’s not like she has any expertise on the subject, but she’s been effectively unpersonned,

    narciso (d1f714)

  220. The movie about the Central Parl five falsely portrayed her, because they falsely protrayed how five peole got falsely convicted (probably) of assault. They’ve been portraying themselves as completely innocent. For that, they have to make the prosecutors, or the police, evil.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflixs-false-story-of-the-central-park-five-11560207823 It shouldn’t have been hard for Ms. DuVernay to discover the truth. The facts of the original case are documented in a 117-page decision by New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Galligan, in sworn testimony given in two trials and affirmed by two appellate courts, and in sworn depositions of more than 95 witnesses—including the five themselves. Instead she has written an utterly false narrative involving an evil mastermind (me) and the falsely accused (the five) ..

    ..Ms. DuVernay’s film attempts to portray me as an overzealous prosecutor and a bigot, the police as incompetent or worse, and the five suspects as innocent of all charges against them. None of this is true.

    Consider the film’s most egregious falsehoods. “When They See Us” repeatedly portrays the suspects as being held without food, deprived of their parents’ company and advice, and not even allowed to use the bathroom. If that had been true, surely they would have brought those issues up and prevailed in pretrial hearings on the voluntariness of their statements, as well as in their lawsuit against the city. They didn’t, because it never happened.

    In the first episode, the film portrays me at the precinct station house before dawn on April 20, the day after the attacks, unethically engineering the police investigation and making racist remarks. In reality, I didn’t arrive until 8 p.m., 22 hours after the police investigation began, did not run the investigation, and never made any of the comments the screenwriter attributes to me.

    Ms. DuVernay depicts suspects Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise being arrested on the street. In fact, two detectives went to the door of the Salaam apartment on the night of the 20th because both had been named by other rioters as attackers in multiple assaults.

    The film claims that when Mr. Salaam’s mother arrived and told police her son was only 15—meaning they could not question him without a parent in the room—I tried to stop her, demanding to see a birth certificate. The truth is that Mr. Salaam himself claimed to be 16 and even had a forged bus pass to “prove” it. When I heard his mother say he was 15, I immediately halted his questioning. This is all supported by sworn testimony.

    Ms. DuVernay would have you believe the only evidence against the suspects was their allegedly forced confessions. That is not true. There is, for example, the African-American woman who testified at the trial—and again during the 2002 re-investigation—that when Korey Wise called her brother, he told her that he had held the jogger down and felt her breasts while others attacked her. There were blood stains and dirt on clothing of some of the five. And then there are the statements of more than a dozen of the other kids who participated in the park rampage. Although none of the others admitted joining in the rape of Trisha Meili, they admitted attacking male victims and a couple on a tandem bike, and each of them named some or all of the five as joining them.

    Nor does the film note that Mr. Salaam took the stand at his trial, represented by a lawyer chosen and paid for by his mother, and testified that he had gone into the park carrying a 14-inch metal pipe—the same type of weapon that was used to bludgeon both a male schoolteacher and Ms. Meili.

    Mr. Reyes’s confession changed none of this. He admitted being the man whose DNA had been left in the jogger’s body and on her clothing, but the two juries that heard those facts knew the main assailant in the rape had not been caught. The five were charged as accomplices, as persons “acting in concert” with each other and with the then-unknown man who raped the jogger, not as those who actually performed the act. In their original confessions—later recanted—they admitted to grabbing her breasts and legs, and two of them admitted to climbing on top of her and simulating intercourse. Semen was found on the inside of their clothing, corroborating those confessions. The movie was oot very educational because it didn’t portray how the wrong convictions actually happened. It was actually a case of the prisoner’s dilemma. And for that, none of the prisoners have to be guilty.

    At the tiem of the confessions, it was thought the joger would die (se survived, but with no memory of the attack) and they were interested in clearing themlseves from the murder. And also from rape.

    But that was probably only possible because they were guilty of assaulting other people. If somebody had none een woth the others they wouldn’t worry they’d be implicated.

    Some twenty or thirty teenagers were going through the park assaulting people, like some sort of a game.

    Linda faorstein also writes:

    Mr. Reyes’s confession, DNA match and claim that he acted alone required that the rape charges against the five be vacated. I agreed with that decision, and still do. But the other charges, for crimes against other victims, should not have been vacated. Nothing Mr. Reyes said exonerated these five of those attacks. And there was certainly more than enough evidence to support those convictions of first-degree assault, robbery, riot and other charges.

    She also says it’s wonderful that “these five men have taken themselves to responsible positions and community respect.”

    But there was a gang of 30.

    Some detectives involved believe that they (or it could be others actually, or some of them ad some others may have assulted the Central Park jogger and left her vulnerable to the rapist. Oterwise she should have been able to outrun him.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  221. These words are mine:

    The movie was not very educational because it didn’t portray how the wrong convictions actually happened. It was actually a case of the prisoner’s dilemma. And for that, none of the prisoners have to be guilty.

    At the tiem of the confessions, it was thought the joger would die (se survived, but with no memory of the attack) and they were interested in clearing themlseves from the murder. And also from rape.

    But that was probably only possible because they were guilty of assaulting other people. If somebody had none een woth the others they wouldn’t worry they’d be implicated.

    Some twenty or thirty teenagers were going through the park assaulting people, like some sort of a game.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)

  222. But to suggest that the behavior described – if it happened – is no big deal and should be dismissed or excused … that is utterly despicable.

    No one has “Suggested” that, except you. Again, I fully expected some to seize on the Phrase “Minor Sexual” assault, ignore the argument actually made and go off on a tangent. Quibbling over words is rather ridiculous.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  223. How does the filter thing work? There’s someone I’d love to “filter”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  224. Trump has reiterated he didn’t know the woman. Said the picture was just of him with his jacket on, his back to the camera, in a line somewhere. So, we have a sexual assault where the victim can’t remember what year or season it took place, and the “so-called attacker” who can’t remember the victim. And this all happened 23 or 24 years ago.

    As Trump stated, the Press is playing with fire with these false accusations.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  225. In the sidebar, all the time, has been this, rcocean:

    Make the comments of annoying commenters disappear, with a simple comment script!

    It’s followed by a link to instructions.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  226. aphrael,

    Freezing strikes me as a common response to fear but Carroll doesn’t seem to be that kind, nor does she see herself that way. She said she is and was a fighter.

    Meanwhile, Trump has bragged about groping women and powerful men on the West Coast have been accused of many assaults. Is the East Coast like the West Coast? Do they both have #MeToo problems?

    DRJ (15874d)

  227. I would piggyback onto DRJ’s observation about Carroll being a fighter and suggest that because she had endured sexual abuse previously in her life, she was conditioned to respond a certain way to traumatic situations that has stayed with her.

    Dana (bb0678)

  228. 229. DRJ (15874d) — 6/24/2019 @ 6:32 pm

    Meanwhile, Trump has bragged about groping women

    he also claimed they let him do it, and told the person he was talking to that that was because he was a star. If you believe the first part, you have to believe the second part or the first part is of no value. If you don’t believe the second part, there is no reason to believe the first part.

    Later, when the tape came out, Trump said it was locker room talk – in other words, a lie. Which the second part obviously was. And the second part was the whole point.

    Sammy Finkelman (7072ea)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6299 secs.