Jump to content

U.S. cannot shield Trump from rape accuser's defamation lawsuit, judge rules


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a believer that when it comes to the statute of limitations, there should be a limit of say 10 years to prosecute someone - re-instated on re-arrival to a country to stop you coming back after it

let the lady be heard see if the accusation is true or not but don’t get the doj involved in defending donald let him defend himself let the case run it’s course Just because he is potus shouldent  sh

His "defamation" was that he denied raping her or, indeed, ever meeting her. Bear in mind that the lady who claimed, during the run-up to the 2016 election, that he had molested her on a plane had,

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I would actually give people until the age of 50 because, once you have children yourself, you are likely to feel differently about it.

That's exactly what I am trying to avoid  - the abuser of a child is probably 30 years older than the child - you are proposing - by the time it gets to court and legal wrangling etc, the potential perp being 80+ ! It's too old for a. the perp to remember and b, for any sentence to be worthwhile 

Edited by RichardColeman
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

That's exactly what I am trying to avoid  - the abuser of a child is probably 30 years older than the child - you are proposing - by the time it gets to court and legal wrangling etc, the potential perp being 80+ ! It's too old for a. the perp to remember and b, for any sentence to be worthwhile 


Well, look, in the case of child abuse, what matters is that the abused remembers it. They won't have dementia by 50, and I am only suggesting that as a cut-off point. The likelihood is that, if they are going to go public at all, they'll do it far earlier than that. The later cut-off point is to avoid placing unnecessary pressure upon them. That the abuser may be far older does not matter in those cases.

What we want to limit is the ability of people who, in their dotage (this writer is 76, two years older than Trump), allege that some high-profile figure abused them, as an adult, decades ago. This particular lady has a track record of making allegations, that can neither be proven nor disproven, against high-profile men. If you watch video of her discussing the alleged incident, it is very clear that this is political kamikaze by a woman with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I believe we now have an environment in which most people who are abused as adults (21 and older) should feel that they will be supported and in now way shamed if they come forward at the time or, as you suggest, within five years. Perhaps we could even say a decade. After that point, however, they must let it rest. They certainly shouldn't be taking defamation cases against someone for denying their historical allegations.

 

Edited by donnacha
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, donnacha said:


I see. So, it would be better for the office of the President of the United States of America if the president does not deny accusations of rape from random people?
 


Their position was that the accusation would clearly not have been made if he was not in that job.

It is the same as death threats against the president. They spend tens of millions every year evaluating and investigating the roughly one thousand death threats per month that every president receives. The supposed "most powerful man in the world" draws a lot of attention from kooks, regardless of who is actually in the office.

Elderly white upper class women feel particularly aggrieved that this particular president beat their great hope, Hillary, so, it is natural that some would go kamikaze. Fortunately, nothing has come out of any of the allegations, not contemporaneous notes by the alleged victims, not even witnesses who saw them together. Remarkable when you consider how famous he was even then and how this particular incident is alleged to have happened in a busy department store.

So, yes. If you suffer an attack due to the office you hold, your employer has a duty to defend you.

 

So you have proof that this was her motive?  And no, it's not the same as death threats against the President. Unless someone is threatening to sue him to death.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...