Trump Accused of Rape

[r3volution 3.0]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...uring-sex.html

Donald Trump introduced his presidential campaign to the world with a slur against Mexican immigrants, accusing them of being “rapists” and bringing crime into the country.

“I mean somebody’s doing it!…Who’s doing the raping?” Donald Trump said, when asked to defend his characterization.

It was an unfortunate turn of phrase for Trump—in more ways than one. Not only does the current front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination have a history of controversial remarks about sexual assault, but as it turns out, his ex-wife Ivana Trump once used “rape” to describe an incident between them in 1989. She later said she felt “violated” by the experience.

Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”
“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

Ivana Trump’s assertion of “rape” came in a deposition—part of the early ’90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.

The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

“Your $#@!ing doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.

What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified…It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”

Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.

“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.

Continue Reading

[Ronin Truth]

Is that why he has been arrested and is currently awaiting trial?

[timosman]

Who is next ? Al Gore ? http://www.people.com/people/article...396495,00.html

[hells_unicorn]

The Daily Beast is an ass-wipe, but even by said standards this is extremely bad journalism and I'd be thrilled to see Trump sue the dickens out of them and put them out of business. An obvious ex-spousal ax to grind here, not to mention something that he was never charged for committing. And this is coming from somebody who has no intention whatsoever of supporting Trump.

[Danke]

Divorced wife makes accusations...Ivana Trump a lot.

[timosman]

It seems like a standard modus operandi for the media. Let's throw rape accusations against the guy. Maybe it will stick (in people's minds).

[r3volution 3.0]

I find this statement especially interesting:

Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”
“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

It sounds as though he's admitting the incident occurred but denying that it was criminal.

[dannno]

The rest of the article is an interesting read - Trump did deny the accusation back in '93, I hope that's the case because the story in the OP is pretty terrifying - also - Trump's lawyer threatens the living crap out of the Daily Beast and they printed what he said, that was pretty entertaining.

[r3volution 3.0]

The Daily Beast is an ass-wipe

Be that as it may, they're merely repeating the tale of the incident as laid out in "Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump."

Here's the website of its author, with his journalistic credentials (which are fairly impressive).

[Dianne]

There is so much we don't know about that "talking hair".

[Ronin Truth]

There is so much we don't know about that "talking hair".

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...16.9MgBsn3qLeY

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump’s lawyer then changed tactics, lobbing insults and threatening a lawsuit if a story was published.


“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very $#@!ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be $#@!ing disgusting. You understand me?”


“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up…for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet…you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.

It's funny, because it's virtually impossible for political figures to sue for slander/libel (1st amendment issues).

And he just officially became a political figure a couple weeks ago.

So, If The Donald has skeletons in his closet the skeletons The Donald has in his closet can now potentially be revealed by journalists at less risk to themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Daily Beast is an ass-wipe, but even by said standards this is extremely bad journalism and I'd be thrilled to see Trump sue the dickens out of them and put them out of business. An obvious ex-spousal ax to grind here, not to mention something that he was never charged for committing. And this is coming from somebody who has no intention whatsoever of supporting Trump.

Why? First amendment doesn't apply if someone says something "mean" about someone *you* like? And here I thought it was the purview of statists to condemn folks for Thoughtcrime and Speechcrime.

[hells_unicorn]

Why? First amendment doesn't apply if someone says something "mean" about someone *you* like? And here I thought it was the purview of statists to condemn folks for Thoughtcrime and Speechcrime.

Do you know how to read HB? I don't like Trump at all, though I do like the drama he's been causing in the GOP for its entertainment value, particularly how far under Krauthammer and McCain's skin he managed to get.

There's this nagging little thing known as the 9th commandment about bearing false witness, and it extends well beyond the courtroom, though the aggravation is naturally less as no direct threat to a person's life or freedom is entailed (indirectly, such things can often lead to many deaths, especially in questions of who will become president). This is the reason why we have slander and libel laws, and contrary to the long departed pagan emperor of the U.S. Franklin Roosevelt, I don't think the laws governing public discourse change when you seek political office.

I know a lot of people have this goofy little fetish for free speech as some magic armor that excuses people from spreading lies, but I don't operate that way. People love to cry about government abuse, but they seem to be just peachy about journalistic abuse, especially when it feeds into government abuse.

I'm going to say this one more time because some individuals don't read very well. I don't like Donald Trump, I'm hoping the GOP doesn't nominate him, get it through your thick heads. This is a matter of principle, and please spare me the stupid Orwell cliches, I'm bored enough as it is.

[hells_unicorn]

Be that as it may, they're merely repeating the tale of the incident as laid out in "Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump."

Here's the website of its author, with his journalistic credentials (which are fairly impressive).

Impressive journalistic credentials including Newsweek and Playboy, as well as being educated at Harvard generally increases my skepticism. Nevertheless, the point isn't who originally got the story (again, where were/are the charges of assault/spousal abuse?), the point is timing and knowingly manipulating opinion for questionable ends (probably and ultimately at the behest of either Neo-cons or the DNC).

Call me crazy, but I like to see reciprocity for journalistic abuse as well as political abuse, and the only thing that would thrill me more than seeing everyone at The Daily Beast lose their shirts would be to see if happen to Gawker first.

[r3volution 3.0]

Impressive journalistic credentials including Newsweek and Playboy

Among many others: Esquire, Fortune, U.S. News and World Report, Sports Illustrated, Architectural Digest, Men’s Journal, Self, Golf Magazine, Golf World, New Orleans Magazine, Mother Jones, the New York Times, the New York Daily News. As I'm sure you read, he's also written a biography of the Hunt Brothers (apparently he has an interest in biographies of the rich and powerful), which was evidently well received by the LA Times and Wall Street Journal.

as well as being educated at Harvard generally increases my skepticism.

Magna cum laude, editor of the Harvard Crimson.

This and the above seem more than enough to not dismiss him out of hand as some kind of tabloid hack.

where are the charges of spousal abuse?

Bill Cosby

the point is timing and knowingly manipulating opinion for questionable ends

O the irony...

(probably and ultimately at the behest of either Neo-cons or the DNC).

Why would either of them oppose Trump? He's on board with the whole program.

[AuH20]

The Daily Beast is like the media companion to the SPLC. Now I'm not saying that there can't be validity to this, but the DB is very sketchy. Avlon has a real big chip on his shoulder and absolutely despises our people.

[hells_unicorn]

Among many others: Esquire, Fortune, U.S. News and World Report, Sports Illustrated, Architectural Digest, Men’s Journal, Self, Golf Magazine, Golf World, New Orleans Magazine, Mother Jones, the New York Times, the New York Daily News. As I'm sure you read, he's also written a biography of the Hunt Brothers (apparently he has an interest in biographies of the rich and powerful), which was evidently well received by the LA Times and Wall Street Journal.

Mother Jones? NYT? Are you seriously touting these as resume enhancers for a standard of truth telling?

Magna cum laude, editor of the Harvard Crimson.

This and the above seem more than enough to not dismiss him out of hand as some kind of tabloid hack.

Didn't say he was a tabloid hack, although I am dismissing him out of hand. Tabloid hacks are less dangerous because you see them coming, it's the so-called "reputable" types that tend to be more worrisome.

Bill Cosby

Not the same thing, we have one disgruntled ex-wife who probably wasn't satisfied with her alimony, with Cosby we have well beyond the needed 2-3 unrelated witnesses, not to mention a good bit more corroborating evidence.

O the irony...

There's plenty of irony to go around here, particularly coming from a so-called "liberty proponent" who thinks that Mother Jones is a reliable news outlet.

Why would either of them oppose Trump? He's on board with the whole program.

Ask The Daily Beast that question, they are a proxy for the DNC and are far less hostile to Neo-cons. Don't believe me? Square them hiring McCain's twit daughter with some notion of objectivity where Trump is concerned.


Again, I repeat, I am not a Trump supporter, the guy is way too militaristic for my taste and I don't think he's good on a number of other essential issues like civil liberties and free market principles, but I generally like to avoid jumping to conclusions unless I have a full read on the situation. It's very possible that Trump may have done this, but I'm not taking anybody's word for it until I hear something from somebody credible, and the Daily Beast and some hotshot out of Harvard working for left-wing media outlets ain't gonna cut it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Mother Jones? NYT? Are you seriously touting these as resume enhancers for a standard of truth telling?

If your position is that no mainstream journalists are ever credible, well that's fine, but somehow I doubt you'd take that approach if, for instance, the New York Times came out with a piece detailing some criminal activity on the part of Lindsey Graham, Dick Cheney, or some other person for whom you have no sympathy. In any event, I find both the author and the story credible on its face. For the rest, I have nothing to say.

[hells_unicorn]

If your position is that no mainstream journalists are ever credible, well that's fine, but somehow I doubt you'd take that approach if, for instance, the New York Times came out with a piece detailing some criminal activity on the part of Lindsey Graham, Dick Cheney, or some other person for whom you have no sympathy. In any event, I find both the author and the story credible on its face. For the rest, I have nothing to say.

As far as being trustworthy, you are correct that I don't place any greater credibility in any mainstream journalists than I do some random guy with a smart phone, generally I have more trust for the random guy actually. This doesn't mean that they are lying all of the time, just that even when they are being truthful, their motives are always suspect, which is a big part of why I don't bother reading any of the outlets that you've named, with maybe the exception of Architectural Digest from time to time if I feel inclined.

As far as them putting something out about McCain or Graham, I'd probably be more inclined to believe it simply because of my knowledge of both individuals, but I wouldn't view the outlets as being any more credible since their motives would probably be similarly questionable. My amusement at Trump potentially destroying a news outlet that I don't like is a matter of seeing someone that I'm at best, ambivalent toward, take out someone that I know is a confirmed enemy. Journalists are, with rare exception, intellectual whores for someone who is either equally as bad or worse than Trump, and its their habitual dishonesty and manipulation that makes me relish the idea of them being punished.

Anyhow, I've gotten a bit off topic here, but I think it was necessary just so anyone else wondering what my angle on this is will have a clearer picture. I'm tired of the MSM thinking they are somehow exempt from the damage they cause with their lies, and I think it's time some of them get a taste of what it's like to be one of their victims.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Donald just wanted a little bit to staple on to the rest of his hair collection. She had more than enough to spare.

[nikcers]

You have now subscribed to Trump facts, Here are Michael Cohen's talking points.

Case for a Lawyered defense.

- Trump Never raped anybody.
- by the very definition, - You can’t rape your spouse.”
- It is true,” Cohen added. - You cannot rape your spouse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACT
(1) More than 100 countries have overturned laws exempting husbands from rape prosecution-.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. -Bill Clinton.

[jj-]

You have now subscribed to Trump facts, Here are Michael Cohen's talking points.

Case for a Lawyered defense.

- Trump Never raped anybody.
- by the very definition, - You can’t rape your spouse.”
- It is true,” Cohen added. - You cannot rape your spouse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACT
(1) More than 100 countries have overturned laws exempting husbands from rape prosecution-.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. -Bill Clinton.

Was the new law already present at the time the accusation occurred?

[nikcers]

Was the new law already present at the time the accusation occurred?

If a tree fell in a forest would it still make a sound? Trumps response on why Mitt Romney lost the election is because he lost the Latino vote because he was too harsh on immigration...

[jj-]

If a tree fell in a forest would it still make a sound? Trumps response on why Mitt Romney lost the election is because he lost the Latino vote because he was too harsh on immigration...

Your "fact check" is irrelevant if the new laws can't be applied retroactively and if the accusation occurred before the new law.

[nikcers]

Your "fact check" is irrelevant if the new laws can't be applied retroactively and if the accusation occurred before the new law.

"Somebody's Doing the Raping" - Trump was right all along.

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you know how to read HB? I don't like Trump at all, though I do like the drama he's been causing in the GOP for its entertainment value, particularly how far under Krauthammer and McCain's skin he managed to get.

There's this nagging little thing known as the 9th commandment about bearing false witness, and it extends well beyond the courtroom, though the aggravation is naturally less as no direct threat to a person's life or freedom is entailed (indirectly, such things can often lead to many deaths, especially in questions of who will become president). This is the reason why we have slander and libel laws, and contrary to the long departed pagan emperor of the U.S. Franklin Roosevelt, I don't think the laws governing public discourse change when you seek political office.

I know a lot of people have this goofy little fetish for free speech as some magic armor that excuses people from spreading lies, but I don't operate that way. People love to cry about government abuse, but they seem to be just peachy about journalistic abuse, especially when it feeds into government abuse.

I'm going to say this one more time because some individuals don't read very well. I don't like Donald Trump, I'm hoping the GOP doesn't nominate him, get it through your thick heads. This is a matter of principle, and please spare me the stupid Orwell cliches, I'm bored enough as it is.

Ah, you believe you own your reputation. One of the great errors among newer folks in the liberty/libertarian movement. Please review the chapters on "The Libler" and "The Slanderer" in Block's "Defending The Undefendable". You simply don't have a logical basis for your claim. See here: https://mises.org/sites/default/file...fendable_2.pdf on page 47 "The Slanderer And Libeler".

Great pullquote:

Now, there is perhaps nothing more repugnant or vicious than libel. We must, therefore, take particular care to defend the

free speech rights of libelers, for if they can be protected, the rights of all others—who do not give as much offense—will cer-

tainly be more secure. But if the rights of free speech of libelers and slanderers are not protected, the rights of others will be less

secure.

[jj-]

"Somebody's Doing the Raping" - Trump was right all along.

So changing the topic is your way of admitting you're not confident your "fact check" is actually relevant to the issue?

[nikcers]

So changing the topic is your way of admitting you're not confident your "fact check" is actually relevant to the issue?

Pick one

(1) Make an argument that 100 countries are wrong to think raping your spouse is still rape.
(2) Cite the law change(s) that you keep implying
(3) Just because something isn't illegal (like slavery) doesn't mean its not morally reprehensible.
(4) Straw man

[r3volution 3.0]

(3) Just because something isn't illegal (like slavery) doesn't mean its not morally reprehensible

Indeed. Forcing someone to have sex with you (spouse or not) is rape according to my ethical principles, no matter what the law says.

It's bizarre that Trump's attorney (and now some Trumpsters here at RPF) are focusing on the legality of it.