Another Trump Rape Surfaces

[Keith&Co.]

Life imitates art, so the alleged rape must have been plagiarized? Wow.

I wonder what new tactic rape apologists and their dupes will come up with next.

Trump enters the episode as evidence in suing her for violating a NonDisclosure Agreement...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Only if Trump kept his calendars.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

LD and Koy, is there anything that would make you doubt a rape allegation?

Once again you confuse doubt with what you do, which is axiomatic dismissal. You just LMAO'd at the mere suggestion that a woman who claims to have been repeatedly assaulted at various times and in varying degrees of severity throughout her life, "plagiarized" a scene from a TV show from eight years ago as her own story.

Which either means, (a) her story is true (and the show, again, famous for taking real life events and incorporating them into their storylines either did so, or it's simply coincidence), in which case she's in need of serious psychological care, or (b) her story is not true (either plagiarism or other), in which case she's in need of serious psychological care.

You and your ilk, however, seem to think any claimants are not only prima facie false, they are to be derided and denigrated regardless, so you're really not in any position to stow thrones.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

LD and Koy, is there anything that would make you doubt a rape allegation?

Once again you confuse doubt with what you do, which is axiomatic dismissal. You just LMAO'd at the mere suggestion that a woman who claims to have been repeatedly assaulted at various times and in varying degrees of severity throughout her life, "plagiarized" a scene from a TV show from eight years ago as her own story.

I'm just going to repeat this point because it easily portrays my thoughts as well.

 

[laughing dog]

LD and Koy, is there anything that would make you doubt a rape allegation?

Of course, there is. Allegations that involve demonstrably false important details create serious doubt. For example, if someone says X raped her on January 4, 2017 and X was not in the region, then that raises doubt.

But as Koy points out, there is a distinct difference between doubt (which is uncertain) and surety. Unlike you, when someone makes an allegation of rape, I do not automatically dismiss it out of hand which does not mean automatic acceptance.

In this particular case, IMO there is sufficient history on the part of Mr. Trump that makes this allegation extremely plausible in light of what is KNOWN (not surmised) at this point.

 

[Ford]

LD and Koy, is there anything that would make you doubt a rape allegation?

Once again you confuse doubt with what you do, which is axiomatic dismissal. You just LMAO'd at the mere suggestion that a woman who claims to have been repeatedly assaulted at various times and in varying degrees of severity throughout her life, "plagiarized" a scene from a TV show from eight years ago as her own story.

You and your ilk, however, seem to think any claimants are not only prima facie false, they are to be derided and denigrated regardless, so you're really not in any position to stow thrones.

Quoted and bolded for additional emphasis.

But wait, there's more! The allegation here is that the woman is doing this for fame/fortune by accusing a prominent individual of rape. So not only should all rape claims be dismissed out of hand, but claims against rich or famous men must be dismissed even more emphatically. Are rich and famous men less likely to commit sexual assault? No, the point is that women are so conniving that they pick on rich and famous men for their own benefit. You know, because coming out and saying "I was raped" has always been a great career move.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

LD and Koy, is there anything that would make you doubt a rape allegation?

Once again you confuse doubt with what you do, which is axiomatic dismissal. You just LMAO'd at the mere suggestion that a woman who claims to have been repeatedly assaulted at various times and in varying degrees of severity throughout her life, "plagiarized" a scene from a TV show from eight years ago as her own story.

You and your ilk, however, seem to think any claimants are not only prima facie false, they are to be derided and denigrated regardless, so you're really not in any position to stow thrones.

Quoted and bolded for additional emphasis.

But wait, there's more! The allegation here is that the woman is doing this for fame/fortune by accusing a prominent individual of rape. So not only should all rape claims be dismissed out of hand, but claims against rich or famous men must be dismissed even more emphatically. Are rich and famous men less likely to commit sexual assault? No, the point is that women are so conniving that they pick on rich and famous men for their own benefit. You know, because coming out and saying "I was raped" has always been a great career move.

But don't you know, some women have lied about rape?! Derec is just trying to teach us this because the hundreds to a thousand plus (not exaggerating) previous times didn't help convince us that most allegations of rape (that Derec has heard of) are false.

 

[Derec]

Once again you confuse doubt with what you do, which is axiomatic dismissal.

It's not axiomatic dismissal, but rather lack of axiomatic belief. "We must believe women" and all that crap by the feminist Left.
Now, in this case I admit I think it is very unlikely her claims are true. I base that on the fact that she didn't report it for 23 years, when all evidence is conveniently absent, on timing of the allegation for her upcoming book (this allegation gave her A LOT of free publicity) and the details of the allegation itself - I find the story unbelievable. The fact that some of the details seem copied from an episode of SVU are just confirming my initial skepticism.

You just LMAO'd at the mere suggestion that a woman who claims to have been repeatedly assaulted at various times and in varying degrees of severity throughout her life, "plagiarized" a scene from a TV show from eight years ago as her own story.

Yes. Now from beginning the account read like bad fiction to me. Especially with the claim that she was sexually assaulted 20 times or so by different men. Stretches credulity.

Which either means, (a) her story is true (and the show, again, famous for taking real life events and incorporating them into their storylines either did so, or it's simply coincidence), in which case she's in need of serious psychological care, or (b) her story is not true (either plagiarism or other), in which case she's in need of serious psychological care.

I do not think it makes sense that the SVU writers took her story for the episode. According to accounts, Carroll only told about the attack to an unidentified friend. Do you think that friend would betray confidence by incorporating some details (particular store, detail of lingerie and dressing room)? For what purpose?
I also do not think it's likely to be a coincidence, but it is possible.

You and your ilk, however, seem to think any claimants are not only prima facie false, they are to be derided and denigrated regardless, so you're really not in any position to stow thrones.

I do not think all rape claims are prima facie false. I think it is very likely Trump sexually assaulted some of the women who accused him. But I think it is very unlikely Carroll is among those women.

 

[Derec]

But wait, there's more! The allegation here is that the woman is doing this for fame/fortune by accusing a prominent individual of rape. So not only should all rape claims be dismissed out of hand, but claims against rich or famous men must be dismissed even more emphatically. Are rich and famous men less likely to commit sexual assault? No, the point is that women are so conniving that they pick on rich and famous men for their own benefit.

Not at all. Had she reported the alleged rape when it allegedly happened (and she can't even remember the year) there would have been forensic evidence. 23 years later such evidence is conveniently absent, so she can make up any story she likes confident that no contradictory evidence is likely to emerge.

You know, because coming out and saying "I was raped" has always been a great career move.

In the #metoo era it can be. Especially when you have a book to sell and are accusing a man who is very hated among a certain segment of the population.
It's not like she is the Justin Fairfax accuser or anything.
Audio: Asked About Justin Fairfax Allegations, Sen. Chap Petersen Says “General Assembly…need to be about representing the people of Virginia, not trying to figure out what happened in some bar in 2004”

 

[Derec]

Of course, there is. Allegations that involve demonstrably false important details create serious doubt. For example, if someone says X raped her on January 4, 2017 and X was not in the region, then that raises doubt.

That is actual strong evidence against the claim, not just grounds for doubt. Grounds for doubt would be her waiting almost quarter century or the fact that she stands to gain from book sales.

But as Koy points out, there is a distinct difference between doubt (which is uncertain) and surety. Unlike you, when someone makes an allegation of rape, I do not automatically dismiss it out of hand which does not mean automatic acceptance.

In this case, I am reasonably sure she is making it up. The whole scenario did not make much sense, and the SVU-gate makes her story even more fishy.

In this particular case, IMO there is sufficient history on the part of Mr. Trump that makes this allegation extremely plausible in light of what is KNOWN (not surmised) at this point.

Trump's history works both ways, so it doesn't bolster either side. That history is known to Carroll and so she knows he would be an easy target for accusations.

 

[Toni]

That is actual strong evidence against the claim, not just grounds for doubt. Grounds for doubt would be her waiting almost quarter century or the fact that she stands to gain from book sales.


In this case, I am reasonably sure she is making it up. The whole scenario did not make much sense, and the SVU-gate makes her story even more fishy.

In this particular case, IMO there is sufficient history on the part of Mr. Trump that makes this allegation extremely plausible in light of what is KNOWN (not surmised) at this point.

Trump's history works both ways, so it doesn't bolster either side. That history is known to Carroll and so she knows he would be an easy target for accusations.

Again, lots of readers are thrilled she has a book out. That alone is plenty of publicity. No one is going to purchase her book to read about a single incident in her book that has already been well quoted and described in the media.

Most women never disclose sexual assaults. It makes sense that she felt compelled to do so now. No one expects you or others like you to believe her. Even Trump supporters who believe her are not going to stop supporting him because he embodies and validates their own bigotry and aids their greed. The bigots are uninterested in becoming enlightened. Those who are motivated by greed only care about accumulating more wealth. Trump’s many sins are of no concern to them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

2020 Trump - Not My Type

 

[laughing dog]

That is actual strong evidence against the claim, not just grounds for doubt. Grounds for doubt would be her waiting almost quarter century or the fact that she stands to gain from book sales.

Those are pretty weak grounds given the amount of abuse she will be subject to.

In this case, I am reasonably sure she is making it up. The whole scenario did not make much sense, and the SVU-gate makes her story even more fishy.

Given there have been over 400 episodes of SVU with most of them about rape, I would be surprised if any real life rape did not resemble a SVU plot.

Trump's history works both ways, so it doesn't bolster either side That history is known to Carroll and so she knows he would be an easy target for accusations.

Wow, you really can spin anything to deflect or defend against a rape accusation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Notice the fact that he excused sexual harassment as Trump merely being "an ass." And the fact that "everybody knows" makes it okay.

Did I say it was ok? No, I did not.

And if it goes over the line into assault, attempted rape, or rape, the woman always has an ulterior motive. Or she's lying. Or she's bought into some radical feminist narrative. In any case, it's never the man's fault.

Nonsense. My point is that allegations need evidence. Even against Trump. And evidence for an allegation 23 years old is going to be impossible to get.

Very difficult, not impossible.

I'm satisfied with what Ford provided--descriptions of the situation that were quite improbable yet seem to match up to reality. This doesn't prove attempted rape but if what happened there was innocent then Kavanaugh would have had no reason to deny it. (And I'm surprised I reached this conclusion. When it first came out I figured it was yet another impossible-to-prove claim.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Both Law And Order SVU and The Apprentice are NBC programs. I wonder if they share writers.

 

[Rhea]

Both Law And Order SVU and The Apprentice are NBC programs. I wonder if they share writers.

Maybe Trump is the one who copycatted the SVU script, eh? He watches the show, tries it out...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here is her account of what happened regarding Trump:

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!”

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.

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.

There are two or three dainty boxes and a lacy see-through bodysuit of lilac gray on the counter. The man snatches the bodysuit up and says: “Go try this on!”

“You try it on,” I say, laughing. “It’s your color.”

“Try it on, come on,” he says, throwing it at me.

“It goes with your eyes,” I say, laughing and throwing it back.

“You’re in good shape,” he says, holding the filmy thing up against me. “I wanna see how this looks.”

“But it’s your size,” I say, laughing and trying to slap him back with one of the boxes on the counter.

“Come on,” he says, taking my arm. “Let’s put this on.”

This is gonna be hilarious, I’m saying to myself — and as I write this, I am staggered by my stupidity. As we head to the dressing rooms, I’m laughing aloud and saying in my mind: I’m gonna make him put this thing on over his pants!

There are several facts about what happens next that are so odd I want to clear them up before I go any further:

Did I report it to the police?

No.

Did I tell anyone about it?

Yes. 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.)

Do I have photos or any visual evidence?

Bergdorf’s security cameras must have picked us up at the 58th Street entrance of the store. We would have been filmed on the ground floor in the bags-and-hats sections. Cameras also must have captured us going up the escalator and into the lingerie department. New York law at the time did not explicitly prohibit security cameras in dressing rooms to “prevent theft.” But even if it had been captured on tape, depending on the position of the camera, it would be very difficult to see the man unzipping his pants, because he was wearing a topcoat. The struggle might simply have read as “sexy.” The speculation is moot, anyway: The department store has confirmed that it no longer has tapes from that time.

Why were there no sales attendants in the lingerie department?

Bergdorf Goodman’s perfections are so well known — it is a store so noble, so clubby, so posh — that it is almost easier to accept the fact that I was attacked than the fact that, for a very brief period, there was no sales attendant in the lingerie department. Inconceivable is the word. Sometimes a person won’t find a sales attendant in Saks, it’s true; sometimes one has to look for a sales associate in Barneys, Bloomingdale’s, or even Tiffany’s; but 99 percent of the time, you will have an attendant in Bergdorf’s. All I can say is I did not, in this fleeting episode, see an attendant. 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.

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.

Also in that piece are some accounts of the other 21 "Hideous Men of My Life" (not necessarily rapists, just "hideous men") , such as Number 13, one of her first bosses (in Chicago in the sixties). The two of them are in a local restaurant awaiting clients when the boss' ex-wife shows up with an "older chap":

A smashingly put-together woman with a flamboyant mane of rich red hair is being escorted with an older chap (he is probably all of 35) to a table across the room. When they are seated, my boss raises his glass to her. She nods and raises one eyebrow at him.

“She’s a cunt,” he says.

Ten minutes later, an odd thing happens. My boss’s ex-wife takes her chap’s hand and raises it to her lips. A moment later, my boss takes my hand and raises it to his lips.

I jerk my hand away.

“Just a welcome smooch,” he says. “Don’t be bourgeois.”

He orders another drink. Across the room, my boss’s ex-wife glances at us and puts her two very, very red open lips on her chap’s cheek and — well, there is no verb available — squishes her lips up and down and sorta rolls them around his face like she is the press-and-steam girl at a dry cleaner.

After she concludes, my boss picks up the glass filled with ice, globs in a mouthful, crunches it for a few seconds, and then plants his freezing lips and tongue on my face.

I nearly fly out of the booth.

“GET OFF!” I cry. “Ewwwwwww!”

“You’re soooo booooooozzzzshwaaaaahh,” says my boss.

She stays, because:

[W]ild, half-witted, greener-than-green Jeanie Carroll, 50 years before #MeToo, 40 years before women even begin expecting things could be different Jeanie Carroll, who takes her licks and doesn’t look back, is not about to pass up a dinner in the goddamn Pump Room!

I have the filet mignon. (One of the last times I ever eat meat, so disgusting is this night.)

My boss? He orders another drink and becomes more and more excited, slobbering on my hand like a Doberman playing with his squeaky toy, and meanwhile my boss’s ex-wife — who I now, half a century later, suspect was actually his wife and this was a little game they played to spice things up — starts rubbing her chap’s leg.

My boss and I can’t really see her doing it, as the table linen hangs nearly to the floor, but it is clear from the feverish action of her upper body that she is rubbing and rubbing and rubbing, and when her chap’s eyes close, she goes on rubbing until, with his face still smeared with lipstick and looking like a sophomore standing on the free-throw line in a tied game, the chap stands up, heaves a wad of cash on the table, grabs the wife, and they scamper toward the exit. My boss asks for the check.

My Jean Rhys Good Morning, Midnight room in the old Hotel Eastgate on Ontario Street no longer exists. But at the time, it is only a dozen or so blocks away, and my boss insists on driving me home. It is my first ride in a Mercedes. I am surprised at how uncomfortable the stiff leather seats are. Two or three blocks from my place, my boss runs a red light, stomps the brakes, skids to a halt, and, jabbering about “that cunt” or “a cunt” or “all cunts,” jams his hand between my legs so hard I bang my head into the dashboard trying to protect myself. I open the car door and bound into the traffic.

My boss must be doing the following things: pulling over, getting out, etc., because as I am about to turn in to the Hotel Eastgate, I look back and see him weaving toward me in a drunken trot. I remember that his legs look menacingly short. I run into the empty hotel lobby. Spurt past the desk. No manager in sight. Check the elevators. Decide to take the stairs two at a time. Hit the second floor. Feeling for the room key in my jacket pocket, I run down the hall, and as I try to put the key in the door, my boss catches me from behind and clamps his teeth on the nape of my neck. I kick backward at his shins, manage to get the key to work, jab a backward elbow into his ribs, squeeze into my room, and push, push, push the door closed.

Have you ever shut a dog outside who wants to come in? My boss scratches and whimpers at that door for the next quarter of an hour. The next day, I get a new job — and never has my lack of all talent been put to better advantage — as a greeter-and-seater at Gino’s East, the Chicago pizza joint beloved by mob guys, journos, and TV glamorosi, and do not so much as call No. 13 to tell him I quit.

I quote that episode as well to illustrate to the usual suspects that it's not in any way a "stretch of credulity" to believe that there could be twenty one such incidents of varying severity, like a wealthy boss, in the sixties, especially in New York, using a pretty young newly hired female employee as a pawn in a drunken, bitter, anger-fueled domestic psychosexual drama and then try to go after her as the anger at his wife's actions builds up.

I have lived in New York for thirties years now and have had many female friends tell me that they are molested or harassed on a daily basis, particularly on the subway. Being groped at rush hour--morning or evening--is pretty much a guarantee for most women. One very close friend of mine was all-out raped by her boss in their midtown office bathroom ffs and that was in 2005.

In regard to her story about Trump, notice how charming and innocent it all seems initially. It's perfectly plausible, particularly given everything we've heard about him prior to Carroll coming forward.

So, where is the part that stretches credulity? That a woman--journalist, no less--living and working in New York and around the world most of her long life would have had so many such instances? Again, I'm willing to bet even money that just about every single woman currently living in New York City--or any city, for that matter and at any age--has more than her share of such assaults, whether comparatively less severe in duration or outcome or not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, where is the part that stretches credulity?

There was that one woman, that one time, who admitted that her rape allegation was a made-up, attention-seeking, revenge-sourced lie. So, you know, we gotta take any rape allegation against any man with a grain of KCl...

 

[ZiprHead]

NaCl

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

NaCl

CaCl is dual purpose and will help keep the dust down too.