Rape Allegations Against Donald Trump

[zoobyshoe]

MANHATTAN (CN) - A woman who says Donald Trump raped her at a private sex party when she was 13 years old refiled a lawsuit against him Friday, two weeks after voluntarily dismissing a suit based on the same claims.
The new complaint, filed in the federal court in Manhattan, restates plaintiff Jane Doe's claims of the earlier lawsuit. Namely, that she was lured by a recruiter to summer parties hosted by co-defendant Jeffrey Epstein at an Upper East Side mansion on East 71st St., tied to a bed and forcibly raped by Trump, who slapped her with an open hand and told her he would do whatever he pleased with her.
Jane Does goes on to claim that after Epstein also forcibly raped her, he and Trump bickered over who should have taken the minor plaintiff's virginity.
The original complaint was accompanied by two declarations.
The first declaration, signed by Jane Doe herself, http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/22/jane%20doe%20affidavit.pdf Trump's alleged "savage sexual attack" on the then-13-year-old plaintiff.
The second declaration was signed by pseudonymous Tiffany Doe, who http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/22/tiffany%20doe%20affidavit.pdf she was hired by Jeffrey Epstein throughout the 1990s to recruit adolescent women to attend the billionaire's parties.
Tiffany Doe claims she convinced the then-13-year-old plaintiff to attend the parties as a means to break into New York's professional modeling world. In her declaration, Tiffany Doe says she witnessed four sexual encounters in which Jane Doe was forced to have sex with Trump, and two encounters involving the plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein.
The Tiffany Doe declaration included Epstein's threats against her and her family for disclosing the details of any sexual abuse of minors by Epstein and his party guests, swearing under penalty of perjury that she understands that her and her family's lives are "now in grave danger."

More:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/30/rape-allegations-refiled-against-donald-trump.htm

It gets worse. In the two "declarations" the two girls say Trump threatened to "disappear" Jane Doe as he had done to a third girl they both knew.

9. Both Defendants had let me know that each was a very wealthy, powerful man and indicated that they had the power, ability and means to carry out their threats. Indeed, Defendant Trump stated that I shouldn't ever say anything if I didn't want to disappeifr like Maria, a 12-year-old female that was forced to be involved in the third incident with Defendant Trump and that I had not seen since that third incident, and ~hat he was capable of having my whole family killed.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/22/jane%20doe%20affidavit.pdf

14. I personally witnessed Defendant Trump telling the Plaintiff that she shouldn't ever say anything if she didn't want to disappear like the 12-year-old female Maria, and that he was capable of having her whole family killed.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/22/tiffany%20doe%20affidavit.pdf

This is a lawsuit, but it seems to me there is a murder alleged here. Couldn't law enforcement investigate that as a separate thing? Wouldn't there be records of this Maria having gone missing at that time?

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Shouldn't Tiffany Doe be indicted for pandering minors?

 

[micromass]

Yep, just when he has a very solid shot at the presidency. That's not fishy or set up at all... Is that the best Clinton can do? Pathetic.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Yep, just when he has a very solid shot at the presidency. That's not fishy or set up at all... Is that the best Clinton can do? Pathetic.

Just MO, but this has Soros written all over it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yep, just when he has a very solid shot at the presidency. That's not fishy or set up at all... Is that the best Clinton can do? Pathetic.

micromass (and Kevin McHugh), this is not the first time that rape allegations have been made against Trump. For example, under oath in a 1989 deposition in a court of law, his ex-wife Ivana Trump had accused him of a violent rape (or at least assault). Furthermore, there are sworn records of his open misogynistic statements against various women, and that there are allegations that he has sexually harassed a wife of someone who he had business dealings with. Not to mention Trump's on-record friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted pedophile and sex offender.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

Of course, without knowing more about the specific allegations, we can't say whether the allegations have any validity, but we shouldn't ignore it or dismiss it out of hand.

 

[mheslep]

...

Of course, without knowing more about the specific allegations, we can't say whether the allegations have any validity, but we shouldn't ignore it or dismiss it out of hand.

If I make assault allegations against Clinton, or anyone else, should they be taken seriously with no evidence and no winesses (an anonymous statement is not a witness). Does it become more believable if I throw in any misogynistic statements Clinton has made ("trailer trash", "bimbo eruption", "narcissistic loony tune")

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/...on-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo

 

[zoobyshoe]

Back to my question:

It looks to me like, as an epiphenomenon of this lawsuit, there is also a murder allegation. In order to have been murdered, a person has to have existed, and a person who existed leaves traces that can be investigated.

Couldn't law enforcement investigate the alleged murder of "Mary Doe," completely separately from this lawsuit? Couldn't, say, the FBI subpoena Mary Doe's real name from the plaintiff and check if any such person ever existed and whether or not they were reported missing at the time in question? Then take it from there?

 

[mheslep]

Cops need a body for a homicide, or a witness. There is neither presented here. Otherwise, a person that's not around to be found is just a missing person.

 

[StatGuy2000]

If I make assault allegations against Clinton, or anyone else, should they be taken seriously with no evidence and no winesses (an anonymous statement is not a witness). Does it become more believable if I throw in any misogynistic statements Clinton has made ("trailer trash", "bimbo eruption", "narcissistic loony tune")

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/...on-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo

mheslep, to answer your first question, assuming that you are not making up allegations out of whole cloth, if you have serious allegations of assault against Clinton, then yes, that needs to be taken seriously.

Going into the specifics of the article you have linked, I have the following remarks:

(1) It is Hillary Clinton, not Bill Clinton, who is running for office. The rape allegation by Juanita Broaddrick is against Bill. That is a serious allegation that needs to be taken seriously and (if not investigated) then at least explored (in the same way that allegations made against Trump). But this has to do with Bill, not Hillary.

(2) I don't condone Hillary Clinton's remarks regarding women who Bill had reported consensual affairs with, but context matters. Whatever you may think of Hillary, she is a wife whose husband has been unfaithful to her. It's not hard for me to imagine her being hurt, and taking that hurt out on these women, and that's a feeling that I can at least understand. What's Trump's excuse?

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, to answer your first question, assuming that you are not making up allegations out of whole cloth,

Hypothetical, hence the 'if'. So far, the only significant difference between my hypothetical and those allegations against Trump is a couple pieces of paper from a lawyer signed with pseudonyms.

if you have serious allegations of assault against Clinton, then yes, that needs to be taken seriously.

Circular. The point of my question was get past the implicit circular reasoning to any evidence, not to make explicit the circular ressoning.

Going into the specifics of the article you have linked, I have the following remarks:...

Details of the article are not necessary or relevant, especially not details about Bill Clinton. Only the Hillary comments there are relevant. You referenced derogatory comments Trump made about women, and offered them for some reason as evidence that sexual assault charges should be taken seriously.

(2) I don't condone Hillary Clinton's remarks...

Not interested in what is condoned, but on what standard qualifies as evidence for a serious crime that applies to everyone, i.e. due process of the law. That is, is there any case beyond, 'I don't like Trump, therefore he probably did whatever it was'

 

[StatGuy2000]

Details of the article are not necessary or relevant, especially not details about Bill Clinton. Only the Hillary comments there are relevant. You referenced derogatory comments Trump made about women, and offered them for some reason as evidence that sexual assault charges should be taken seriously.

I referenced derogatory comments Trump made about women to indicate his state of mind about women in general. Within that context, accusations of sexual assault (whether they are true or not) would not be surprising, since sexual assault is the among the most extreme, violent manifestation of misogyny.

Again, I'm not here to ascertain whether Trump is guilty or not of sexual assault -- as you have indicated, the latest accusations are made by two anonymous, and we don't know at this time whether these accusations are credible, so none of us can say whether he is actually guilty (ideally, this is something that should best be done in a court of law). But these accusations are serious, and therefore deserve to be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand as an attempt at mudslinging, as has been suggested in this thread.

 

[mheslep]

...But these accusations are serious, and therefore deserve to be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand as an attempt at mudslinging, as has been suggested in this thread.

One more time. Who says the piece of paper is "serious"? What makes it serious? Repeating the word does not make it so.

 

[StatGuy2000]

One more time. Who says the piece of paper is "serious"? What makes it serious? Repeating the word does not make it so.

The alleged victim has filed a lawsuit against Trump in federal court in Manhattan, claiming that she had been raped by him, and another (anonymous) woman reportedly witnessed the events. Note -- this is not just a public statement, but a lawsuit, in a court of law. Until we learn more, I would consider these allegations as "serious". Don't you?

 

[Evo]

According to Snopes the lawsuit is real. http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/03/rape-lawsuit-refiled-against-donald-trump/ Let's not forget, innocent until proven guilty. It is what it is.

 

[russ_watters]

Note -- this is not just a public statement, but a lawsuit, in a court of law. Until we learn more, I would consider these allegations as "serious". Don't you?

You flipped definitions of "serious" there. The first time you (and mheslep) used it, it was to mean "credible". Here you use it to mean "important" or "earnest". There's a big, big difference and the point mheslep was making is that an allegation is not evidence, it is just an allegation. If true, the crime would be "serious" (important), but as it stands now, we don't have any way of knowing if the allegation is "serious" (credible). That's the point of the discussion and the point of his making a similar hypothetical allegation against Clinton.

Further, bringing up character flaws that are not actual evidence of the alleged crime is not useful here: it isn't serious.

 

[Evo]

And that's a good place to close, if progress is made with the suit, please contact me and I can re-open the thread. This bickering is ridiculous.