• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Charged With Rape of Teen in Civil Court

You said: "It was just filed; major media is treating it gingerly." Major media is not "treating it gingerly." They are not reporting it at all (though I would not be surprised to see it show up in the New York Times).

Do you understand the definition of gingerly?
I believe that even the liberal main stream press will give this obvious politically motivated claim little credence.
You seem quite certain this is all just politically motivated.

It may well be, but I will wait for more information.
 
Do you understand the definition of gingerly?
You seem quite certain this is all just politically motivated.

It may well be, but I will wait for more information.

Yes, but do you?

"It was just filed; major media is treating it gingerly." Paperview

Please give me one piece of evidence that "major media" has addressed this issue in any way. If you can point to a NYT editorial, for example, that mentions the allegations with a caveat that, "We are not sure there is any validity to the claim and we are awaiting more information." That is treating it gingerly. If you are carefully pulling a cork out of a bottle of champagne, you may be extracting it "gingerly." If you are ignoring the champagne bottle and the cork, you are not treating it gingerly, you are simply ignoring it.

You imply that this accusation has some hidden importance, not only because it is reported in biased liberal rags, but because "major media" is involved in some way, even if "gingerly." That is dishonest and misleading. Now I am going to gingerly open a bottle of champagne.
 
Yow. Some real anger issues there, it appears. Hope that alcohol helped tame it.


It means they are weighing the information, and waiting to see how the judge assigned to the case treats it - is my guess.

21 days from the day of filing is normally the case, it is then we will learn more. Summons have been delivered to both Epstein and Trump.
 
And you may peruse now the "Puffington:"


Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored

Lisa Bloom Legal analyst for NBC News and Avvo, attorney and bestselling author

"An anonymous “Jane Doe” filed a federal lawsuit against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump last week, accusing him of raping her in 1994 when she was thirteen years old. The mainstream media ignored the filing.
If the Bill Cosby case has taught us anything, it is to not disregard rape cases against famous men. Serious journalists have publicly apologized for turning a blind eye to the Cosby accusers for over a decade, notwithstanding the large number of women who had come forward with credible claims. And now history is repeating itself.

In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context. Unproven allegations are just that - unproven, and should be identified that way. (Mr. Trump’s lawyer says the charges are “categorically untrue, completely fabricated and politically motivated.”) Proof comes later, at trial. But the November election will come well before any trial. And while Mr. Trump is presumed innocent, we are permitted - no, we are obligated — to analyze the case’s viability now."

The NBC legal analyst goes on to note no one of course can say whether Mr. Trump is innocent or guilty of these charges and suggest we analyze the court filings to determine credibility based on the information we have and arrives at this:

"I have done that. And the answer is a clear yes. These allegations are credible. They ought not be ignored. Mainstream media, I’m looking at you."
 
MaggieD is the comment winner on this thread.

"Powerfully, Jane Doe appears to have an eyewitness to all aspects of her claim, a witness who appears to have put herself in substantial danger by coming forward, because at a minimum Mr. Epstein knows her true identity."

witness-affidavit.jpg


https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits[/QUOTE]
 
Did Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Rape A 13 Year Old Girl? | National Review

NRO is not a liberal rag.


That article is from the day after the filing.

Boy that IS some creative editing! The actual title to the article that your URL connects to is:
"Is There Anything to a Lawsuit Accusing Donald Trump of Raping a 13-year-old Girl With Bill Clinton's Billionaire Sex Buddy"

It goes on: "The lawsuit is not likely to go very far...", "In other words, without any type of supporting evidence, we should not put much stock in the sensational and belated claim of Trump himself participating in the rape of a young teenager."

As you have stated, I would have to concur that the NRO is not a liberal rag. It is merely reporting the facts related to the accusation.

What is it with you liberals that you consistently do not actually read the articles that you post, and rely on made up headlines to support your opinion? Isn't this at all embarrassing to you? Did you think your dishonestly manufactured headline would dissuade people from clicking on the URL? What a major fail on your part, when with my badgering, you finally present a "major media" piece that precisely contradicts your OP...and you failed to read it...pitiful.
 
Boy that IS some creative editing! The actual title to the article that your URL connects to is:
"Is There Anything to a Lawsuit Accusing Donald Trump of Raping a 13-year-old Girl With Bill Clinton's Billionaire Sex Buddy"

It goes on: "The lawsuit is not likely to go very far...", "In other words, without any type of supporting evidence, we should not put much stock in the sensational and belated claim of Trump himself participating in the rape of a young teenager."

As you have stated, I would have to concur that the NRO is not a liberal rag. It is merely reporting the facts related to the accusation.

What is it with you liberals that you consistently do not actually read the articles that you post, and rely on made up headlines to support your opinion? Isn't this at all embarrassing to you? Did you think your dishonestly manufactured headline would dissuade people from clicking on the URL? What a major fail on your part, when with my badgering, you finally present a "major media" piece that precisely contradicts your OP...and you failed to read it...pitiful.
You're just awash in rage, aren't you?

I read the NRO article when it was published, the point was to show it was not just "liberal rags" reporting on it -- and you did a fine piece of plucking there.

Most all of us are saying we are waiting for more evidence.

Here's my pluck from the NRO article:

"As a thrice-married admitted adulterer, Trump’s history doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in this area, from bragging about bedding married women to his comments to Howard Stern about watching Paris Hilton’s sex tape to his weird habit of commenting on the sex appeal of his own daughter to embracing convicted rapist Mike Tyson to defending Bill Clinton himself in his sex scandals in the 1990s, just to pick a few examples."

And the author of that article also said this: "the apparent lack of corroboration beyond the accuser’s word, all cut against believing the charge. "

He apparently didn't read the eyewitness statement.

There's that.
 
Don't expect any comments from DP posters who are constantly going on about Bill Clinton's alleged deeds....
 
UPDATE: The judge assigned to the case has ordered the parties appear in court for a "status conference."


DONALD J. TRUMP and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
USDC-SDNY

DATE FILED: 6/30/2016
No. 16-CV-4642 (RA)
ORDER AND NOTICE
OF INITIAL CONFERENCE

It is hereby: ORDERED that counsel for all parties appear for an initial status conference on
September 9, 2016 at 3:15 p.m. in Courtroom 1506 of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by September 2, 2016, the parties jointly submit to the
Court a proposed case management plan and scheduling order."

All parties must also submit a letter to the court:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by September 2, 2016, the parties submit a joint letter, not to exceed five (5) pages, providing the following information in separate paragraphs:

1.A brief description of the nature of the action and the principal defenses
thereto;

See here for the balance:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316386913/Doe-V-Donald-Trump
 
I'm not a Trump guy, never have been.
But I find the timing of this lawsuit and allegation a little too cutesy and partisan-political.

Lady, you claim to have been raped in 1994, but wait until 2016, when a guy is well into his Presidential campaign, to level the allegations?
Who does that?

Shabby, embarrassing (for the lady in question and her lawyer) useless, and utterly-lacking in credibility.

Next, please.
:doh

Yup, same here. I don't like Trump and make no secret of it. But the logic here is terribly flawed. She was supposedly raped by him 22 years ago, and she files a lawsuit now, coincidentally the same year he is getting the GOP nomination for President? Sorry, not buying it one bit. There's so much to go after Trump on. This isn't one of those things. Also, the fact that you hardly hear about this in the media shows that even those vultures don't buy it.
 
Yes, but do you?

"It was just filed; major media is treating it gingerly." Paperview

Please give me one piece of evidence that "major media" has addressed this issue in any way. If you can point to a NYT editorial, for example, that mentions the allegations with a caveat that, "We are not sure there is any validity to the claim and we are awaiting more information." That is treating it gingerly. If you are carefully pulling a cork out of a bottle of champagne, you may be extracting it "gingerly." If you are ignoring the champagne bottle and the cork, you are not treating it gingerly, you are simply ignoring it.

You imply that this accusation has some hidden importance, not only because it is reported in biased liberal rags, but because "major media" is involved in some way, even if "gingerly." That is dishonest and misleading. Now I am going to gingerly open a bottle of champagne.

The major media isn't running this story at all. They know it's pretty absurd for a woman to wait more than 2 decades to cry "rape" to begin with, and it stinks to high heaven that the man happens to be running for POTUS at the very same time.

Go after Trump for his real malfeasance, and leave this kind of tripe to the people who enjoy peeking in others' underwear drawers.
 
The major media isn't running this story at all. They know it's pretty absurd for a woman to wait more than 2 decades to cry "rape" to begin with, and it stinks to high heaven that the man happens to be running for POTUS at the very same time.

Go after Trump for his real malfeasance, and leave this kind of tripe to the people who enjoy peeking in others' underwear drawers.


Not according to Juanita Broaddrick .....

<1978>

<1998>

......
 
Back
Top Bottom