Poll of the Day > 16 of Trump's Accusers Demand Congressional Investigation

(+) Yeah! (+)

You can watch the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4LQuwSjc34

You can find out more about some of the accusers here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/what-happened-to-trumps-16-sexual-misconduct-accusers.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/22/president-trump-and-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct-the-complete-list/?utm_term=.4757b87c007c

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-sexual-harassment-claims-fake-news-corroborators-a8026151.html

And just more about it in general

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-sexual-harassment-accusers-20171211-story.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568618889/lawsuit-could-put-trumps-sexual-misconduct-accusers-back-in-spotlight
---

So in other words, attention whores who want their 15 minutes of fame, with no evidence whatsoever.

I sympathize with these women, but what is an investigation going to do?

Unless there happens to be video footage somewhere of the Donald sexual assaulting any of these women, there's not a whole lot we can do about it.
---

There's also the case that was in court regarding a woman accusing Trump and Epstein of rape when she was only 13. Including witness testimony that Trump had forced a 12 year old to have oral sex with him.

Want details? Check it out: http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/doe-v-trump

Have a look at the video deposition of the woman that has accused Donald Trump of raping her as a teen (with known predator and pedophile Epstein).

https://vimeo.com/176181706

Trump has this to say of Epstein, convicted of sexual abuse of minors:

Ive known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. Hes a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.

---

Smarkil posted...

I sympathize with these women, but what is an investigation going to do?

Unless there happens to be video footage somewhere of the Donald sexual assaulting any of these women, there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

There's video footage of him admitting to (and outright boasting about) sexually assaulting women, which he now claims he never said.

Weinstein's accusers did not have video footage, not did Moore's accusers. The Silence Breakers still deserve to be heard out.

A Congressional investigation is not going to do much under a tight Republican Congress, but that also doesn't mean we should ignore these people. What's the over/under on accusers before people believe that at least some of it is true? Weinstein and Cosby were well past that threshold, even Moore with his 4 accusers has faced criticism. This is 4x that number--and some of the accusers have filed lawsuits.
---

Is this a civil or criminal case now? I thought they were all civil cases.

TheWorstPoster posted...

So in other words, attention whores who want their 15 minutes of fame, with no evidence whatsoever.

Do you really find it hard to believe that Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump sexually assaulted somebody? He literally and explicitly boasted about doing so in a more general sense.
---

adjl posted...

TheWorstPoster posted...

So in other words, attention whores who want their 15 minutes of fame, with no evidence whatsoever.

Do you really find it hard to believe that Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump sexually assaulted somebody? He literally and explicitly boasted about doing so in a more general sense.

It doesn't matter what You think, but what THEY can prove. Which is nothing.
---

Wait a second, all of these have been settled out of court in the civil system, you can't just go into the criminal court when it's already done.

I realize I'm siding with the bad guy here, but this is how the system works.

shadowsword87 posted...

Is this a civil or criminal case now? I thought they were all civil cases.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-may-face-perils-of-a-defamation-lawsuit-tied-to-sexual-harassment-allegations

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/05/trump-defamation-lawsuit-summer-zervos

I'm not sure if the defamation suit is also civil. Some jurisdictions it's only treated as criminal.

Sometimes civil court is the only way to get any level of justice
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Wait a second, all of these have been settled out of court in the civil system, you can't just go into the criminal court when it's already done.

I realize I'm siding with the bad guy here, but this is how the system works.

...? they weren't all settled out of court, and a Congressional Investigation is not bringing a crime to the criminal court system.

Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congress's stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy.

basically is/was there misconduct and if so what should the remedy be
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

There's video footage of him admitting to (and outright boasting about) sexually assaulting women, which he now claims he never said.

Weinstein's accusers did not have video footage, not did Moore's accusers. The Silence Breakers still deserve to be heard out.

But that's not evidence. Even if I were to say, "I just robbed a liquor store", that would not be actual evidence of it happening. There would have to be evidence of the incident occurring before an admission of guilt can be taken into account. The only evidence we have so far is witness testimony.

Doctor Foxx posted...

A Congressional investigation is not going to do much under a tight Republican Congress, but that also doesn't mean we should ignore these people. What's the over/under on accusers before people believe that at least some of it is true? Weinstein and Cosby were well past that threshold, even Moore with his 4 accusers has faced criticism. This is 4x that number--and some of the accusers have filed lawsuits.

Witness testimony, contrary to what Law and Order might have you believe, is notoriously unreliable. There could be a thousand women claiming they were assaulted by the man, but it doesn't mean anything without evidence. If Trump were not a public figure who were hated by 50%+ of the country, it might be a little easier to argue.

A congressional inquiry isn't going to do anything unless there's some sort of physical evidence to corroborate testimony. Innocent until proven guilty. I know the court of public opinion has already determined he's guilty, but unfortunately where the law is concerned we have to assume he's innocent until proven otherwise.
---

Smarkil posted...

There could be a thousand women claiming they were assaulted by the man, but it doesn't mean anything without evidence.

He has boasted about sexually assaulting women, on tape, I'm sure you've also heard it.

Smarkil posted...

If Trump were not a public figure who were hated by 50%+ of the country, it might be a little easier to argue.

Most of these claims predate not only the presidential election, but also his reality TV presence and minor celebrity status

Smarkil posted...

A congressional inquiry isn't going to do anything unless there's some sort of physical evidence to corroborate testimony. Innocent until proven guilty. I know the court of public opinion has already determined he's guilty, but unfortunately where the law is concerned we have to assume he's innocent until proven otherwise.

A congressional inquiry and the likely perjury to follow would certainly have some effects. That's what got Clinton: not his shitty treatment of women but his dishonesty under oath.
---

There's no way to say this without being insensitive but if it's not a matter of national security then his past exploits need to be put on ice. This isn't just some celebrity's reputation, this is the president. He's got the most important job in the nation to focus on, he shouldn't be distracted with battling skeletons in the closet.

Once he's out of office by all means get him. If he has misconducts while in office (a la Clinton) by all means get him.
---

Veedrock- posted...

There's no way to say this without being insensitive but if it's not a matter of national security then his past exploits need to be put on ice. This isn't just some celebrity's reputation, this is the president. He's got the most important job in the nation to focus on, he shouldn't be distracted with battling skeletons in the closet.

You're right, he should instead be distracted by golf, Twitter, meetings with his business buddies, and 8 hours of television a day.

This should have come to a head prior to the election and it never did. People were also not really listening and taking action before Weinstein. Someone with a graveyard in their closet had no business being nominated as a Presidential candidate by the GOP or any other party.

Veedrock- posted...

Once he's out of office by all means get him. If he has misconducts while in office (a la Clinton) by all means get him.

His misconduct in office is being looked into, albeit for other things. Should Trump not be tied up with the investigation headed by Mueller?
---

Look at that strawman.
---

Veedrock- posted...

This isn't just some celebrity's reputation, this is the president.

Seeking justice for sexual assault victims isn't about the attacker's reputation. It's about righting a wrong, and preventing similar wrongs from ever happening again. Being the president shouldn't exempt anyone from that.

Veedrock- posted...

He's got the most important job in the nation to focus on, he shouldn't be distracted with battling skeletons in the closet.

He's the one that put the skeletons in there. If he can't battle them while also being the president, then he should resign. None of this "he's busy now, can I pencil you in for seeking justice in 2021?" nonsense.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

He has boasted about sexually assaulting women, on tape, I'm sure you've also heard it.

But that's not evidence. Even if I were to say, "I just robbed a liquor store", that would not be actual evidence of it happening. There would have to be evidence of the incident occurring before an admission of guilt can be taken into account. The only evidence we have so far is witness testimony.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Most of these claims predate not only the presidential election, but also his reality TV presence and minor celebrity status

And yet these claims didn't come out until he had celebrity status and he was the president. I'm not doubting their claims, but again, people will find it suspicious that they came out after he was in a position of power and hated by the majority of the country and possibly world.

Doctor Foxx posted...

A congressional inquiry and the likely perjury to follow would certainly have some effects. That's what got Clinton: not his shitty treatment of women but his dishonesty under oath.

Clinton did his shit while he was in office. He didn't do it 15-40 years ago. Trump lying about it could easily be explained by him not remembering correctly. You can't make that argument for something that happened a week ago.

adjl posted...

He's the one that put the skeletons in there. If he can't battle them while also being the president, then he should resign. None of this "he's busy now, can I pencil you in for seeking justice in 2021?" nonsense.

You're operating under the assumption that the allegations are true. If they aren't true, then you expect him to resign to fight something that never happened?
---

adjl posted...

He's the one that put the skeletons in there. If he can't battle them while also being the president, then he should resign.

This is an argument I'll accept. I still disagree (above post gets it), but it's respectable at least.
---

Smarkil posted...

You're operating under the assumption that the allegations are true. If they aren't true, then you expect him to resign to fight something that never happened?

I'm operating under the assumption that false allegations would be cleared up quickly enough to not be particularly disruptive, as they would with allegations of any other crimes. That is a fairly shaky assumption, but the underlying idea is "don't do the crime if you don't have time to go to court over it."

Mostly, though, I'm operating under the principle that being the president should not act as protection from the consequences for prior misdeeds. Expecting the president to resign whenever he's accused of a crime is hardly practical, but there needs to be some middle ground that's better than ignoring anything without conclusive evidence because "being the president is more important." Especially where it's so easy to draw out court proceedings and investigations such that they take longer than the election.
---

adjl posted...

I'm operating under the assumption that false allegations would be cleared up quickly enough to not be particularly disruptive, as they would with allegations of any other crimes. That is a fairly shaky assumption, but the underlying idea is "don't do the crime if you don't have time to go to court over it."

But how could it be? Do you really think even if there was an inquiry that people would be satisfied by that?

I don't think anyone could ever clear Trump sufficiently to prove that he never did anything (if he in fact did not). What else should he or the court be doing besides say, "Bring me some evidence."

adjl posted...

Mostly, though, I'm operating under the principle that being the president should not act as protection from the consequences for prior misdeeds. Expecting the president to resign whenever he's accused of a crime is hardly practical, but there needs to be some middle ground that's better than ignoring anything without conclusive evidence because "being the president is more important." Especially where it's so easy to draw out court proceedings and investigations such that they take longer than the election.

Of course not. Nobody is above the law. But nobody is below the law either. Until sufficient evidence is provided to determine an investigation needs to take place, then they can't do anything. If Gloria Allred wants to take on the case and find some evidence that Trump did some fucked up shit, then more power to them. Until then, we don't need a congressional hearing for every accusation made against someone in power.
---

Smarkil posted...

But that's not evidence. Even if I were to say, "I just robbed a liquor store", that would not be actual evidence of it happening. There would have to be evidence of the incident occurring before an admission of guilt can be taken into account. The only evidence we have so far is witness testimony.

1) An admission of guilt in a related crime or immoral activity is evidence.
2) Witness testimony is evidence.

Smarkil posted...

Witness testimony, contrary to what Law and Order might have you believe, is notoriously unreliable.

It can be, but it's also used in the vast majority of cases as evidence, and in some cases the decision is mostly based on witness testimony.

Smarkil posted...

Of course not. Nobody is above the law. But nobody is below the law either. Until sufficient evidence is provided to determine an investigation needs to take place, then they can't do anything.

I can't stress this enough: witness testimony is court-admissible evidence. Especially if these women go before the Senate or a court (and thus are sworn to be truthful), it becomes quite serious evidence.

#fakenews
---

adjl posted...

TheWorstPoster posted...

So in other words, attention whores who want their 15 minutes of fame, with no evidence whatsoever.

Do you really find it hard to believe that Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump sexually assaulted somebody? He literally and explicitly boasted about doing so in a more general sense.

Do you really find it hard to believe that anti Trump people could possibly run a smear campaign to remove him from office?

I believe the accusers, but I'm not the one needing convinced. Definitive proof is needed to sway the masses, and especially to successfully remove him from office.

On a side note... The Clinton's and Trump go way back together, they also both go way back with convicted pedo Jeff Epstein. And they go back with Weinstein. Makes me think that sex with minors is a regular occurrence amongst the political elite, but it only becomes public when the perpetrator somehow displeases the rest of the political elite.
---

SushiSquid posted...

1) An admission of guilt in a related crime or immoral activity is evidence.
2) Witness testimony is evidence.

Except it's not related to a crime yet. You have to have evidence that a crime was committed first before witness testimony becomes relevant. It's corroborating evidence to the guilt of the person after there is proof a crime has been committed.

If you went up to a cop and told them that I shit in your mouth, do you think they would arrest me and put me on trial based on that admission alone? Or do you think they'd ask you to show them the fecal matter in your teeth before they put me in handcuffs?

He has to be charged with something dude.

SushiSquid posted...

It can be, but it's also used in the vast majority of cases as evidence, and in some cases the decision is mostly based on witness testimony.

The only time in which a witness testimony is the deciding factor in a case is when the witness can be deemed to be credible. There are a lot of things that go into determining whether or not someone is a credible witness - being a woman and having reason to hate Donald Trump is not one of them.

And again, these accusations range from 15-40 years ago. So we have no proof a crime was committed and the only evidence we have thus far is a witness testimony from people who hate the guy. What are we supposed to do with this?

SushiSquid posted...

I can't stress this enough: witness testimony is court-admissible evidence. Especially if these women go before the Senate or a court (and thus are sworn to be truthful), it becomes quite serious evidence.

Of course it's admissible. I didn't say it wasn't. It just isn't proof that a crime was committed. Why do you think so many rapists go free? Unless the woman had a rape kit completed after the act, it's extremely difficult to prove that the crime ever even happened. They need proof of bruising, physical evidence, etc. before they can put someone in jail.

And let's be real, people lie before the court ALL the time. They know it. I know it. Moltar know it. We all know it.
---

adjl posted...

TheWorstPoster posted...

So in other words, attention whores who want their 15 minutes of fame, with no evidence whatsoever.

Do you really find it hard to believe that Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump sexually assaulted somebody? He literally and explicitly boasted about doing so in a more general sense.

That was more of a rip-off of the saying "grab life by the balls", no one is literally grabbing life by the balls, its just a saying.

If someone has conclusive evidence of him assaulting someone then condemn him, sure.

But it seemed more of a sexually aggressive comment showing confidence in one's ability to sleep with women.

"I don't like Trump, therefore, I will believe anything and everything negative that people say about him without any evidence or doing any research of my own, because it conforms to my current way way of thinking".
---

TigerTycoon posted...

"I don't like blacks, therefore, I will believe anything and everything negative that people say about them without any evidence or doing any research of my own, because it conforms to my current way way of thinking".

Welcome to our world fam.
---

Leave it to the racist to try and spin this into a race debate.
---

dioxxys posted...

That was more of a rip-off of the saying "grab life by the balls", no one is literally grabbing life by the balls, its just a saying.

Did you not listen to his whole conversation or are you just childishly naive.

Veedrock- posted...

Leave it to the racist to try and spin this into a race debate.

jlawok.gif
---

Smarkil posted...

Why do you think so many rapists go free? Unless the woman had a rape kit completed after the act, it's extremely difficult to prove that the crime ever even happened.

Even with rape kits unless the offender is in a database for other crimes you're often out of luck. That's if your kit gets tested, there's a serious backlog of rape kits across the US that are just sitting and not being processed (often for years while the offender is free to continue to assault).

It's almost like it's extremely difficult to convict someone of sexual assault even with physical evidence and witness testimony
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

You're right, he should instead be distracted by golf, Twitter, meetings with his business buddies, and 8 hours of television a day.

This should have come to a head prior to the election and it never did. People were also not really listening and taking action before Weinstein. Someone with a graveyard in their closet had no business being nominated as a Presidential candidate by the GOP or any other party.

For the record, having a bunch of off time while working is totally fine, if you actually are good at doing your job.

Veedrock- posted...

There's no way to say this without being insensitive but if it's not a matter of national security then his past exploits need to be put on ice. This isn't just some celebrity's reputation, this is the president. He's got the most important job in the nation to focus on, he shouldn't be distracted with battling skeletons in the closet.

Once he's out of office by all means get him. If he has misconducts while in office (a la Clinton) by all means get him.

Yeah, but you need to take into account that those "errors in judgment" are indicative of somebody who shouldn't be given so much power.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

For the record, having a bunch of off time while working is totally fine, if you actually are good at doing your job.

For most jobs I'd agree. Not for POTUS.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

It's almost like it's extremely difficult to convict someone of sexual assault even with physical evidence and witness testimony

Which is a good thing if you ask me. Rape is worse than murder in my eyes and it certainly is a life ruining accusation when done falsely. The burden of proof should be high.

Sexual assault is a different story, but of course that also requires a different burden of proof.
---

The shifting narratives around sexual assaults from Republican die-hards is getting a little hard to stomach.

"Those Moore accusers are just Democrat hacks. Don't you find it odd that they're doing this right before the election?"
"OK... what about the Trump accusers who are doing this almost as far away from the next election as you can get?"
"They're just attention whores who clearly hate Trump. Why should I believe them?"

OK, guys, what exactly do you believe a credible accusation against a sitting Republican politician would look like?
---

TigerTycoon posted...

"I don't like Trump, therefore, I will believe anything and everything negative that people say about him without any evidence or doing any research of my own, because it conforms to my current way way of thinking".

You forgot why they don't like trump. I'll help.

"The media told me not to like trump, so I don't like trump *the rest of what you posted after I don't like trump"
---

darkknight109 posted...

OK, guys, what exactly do you believe a credible accusation against a sitting Republican politician would look like?

Evidence mostly.
---

Desperate Liberal Attack Against Trump #3291824379101.

Call me when this one passes and we're on to the next.
---

Smarkil posted...

darkknight109 posted...

OK, guys, what exactly do you believe a credible accusation against a sitting Republican politician would look like?

Evidence mostly.

Weird how gosh darn many of these definitions of evidence include witness testimony...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects

I think you need to understand what evidence is a little more. It's not just physical objects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

I think you need to understand what evidence is a little more. It's not just physical objects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Alright.

I'm accusing you of robbing my house.

When does the trial start?
---

Smarkil posted...

Evidence mostly.

OK, so, it's only a crime if you leave evidence behind? If I grope a woman's breasts, that's not a crime unless someone happened to catch it on camera?

I mean, maybe ten people were around who all saw me do it and are willing to testify to that, but if there's no evidence it's still not credible in your eyes?

Smarkil posted...

Alright.

I'm accusing you of robbing my house.

When does the trial start?

Well, let's start by asking when Foxx broke into your house and what she took from you. Can you provide an itemized list? Did you file a police report? Did you talk to anyone about it in the aftermath? Did anyone else see Foxx rob your place (or even see your place after she robbed it)?

This is the thing that always bugs me about the "no physical evidence = no crime" group - there's a lot more to crime and criminal law than that. OK, if someone just accused Trump of groping her and couldn't provide any evidence she was ever even near him, let alone in a position to be groped by him, I'd be disinclined to believe her story. But if the women's testimony is corroborated by other details, it suddenly becomes much more believable.

Consider Roy Moore, for instance. Is any physical evidence of his crimes available? No. However, nearly a dozen women - all unaffiliated, some of whom have a history of voting Republican - have emerged to accuse him. Many of their stories have similar details in terms of their age, the type of behaviour Moore displayed, and how far he was willing to go (apparently stopping at groping and forced kissing). Corroborating details - like Moore getting banned from the mall or other store employees knowing him and his habit of creeping on teenage cashiers - have been substantiated by other witnesses. This suggests that their accusations are highly credible - they aren't floating in a vacuum where a few women toss out a random accusation; the women are able to point to specific places and details that simply wouldn't exist if the allegations were false.

Just as damningly, Moore himself earlier admitted knowing two of the girls and acknowledged he might have dated them but couldn't remember, before subsequently changing his story and denying he'd met any of them or ever dated any teenagers, which is a pretty significant change of story and substantially throws his credibility into doubt.

I'm not saying that every accusation warrants an immediate execution, no questions asked - but a serious allegation demands a serious response, and if the accuser is able to provide corroborating details their allegations should be considered credible. Keep in mind that various studies have shown that somewhere between 92% and 98% of sex assault allegations are legit, so the odds that you have one woman - let alone a dozen of them - all making false allegations are pretty slim.
---

Chill fakebatman. You're victim blaming.

If smarkil says she robbed his house, I believe him.
---

Smarkil posted...

I sympathize with these women, but what is an investigation going to do?

Foxx is a disinformation agent so it's less about an investigation and more about anything to discredit Trump.

Doctor Foxx posted...

There's video footage of him admitting to (and outright boasting about) sexually assaulting women, which he now claims he never said.

"They let you do it" = consent, assuming that his banter was true at all.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Smarkil posted...

darkknight109 posted...

OK, guys, what exactly do you believe a credible accusation against a sitting Republican politician would look like?

Evidence mostly.

Weird how gosh darn many of these definitions of evidence include witness testimony...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects

I think you need to understand what evidence is a little more. It's not just physical objects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Well, the last time America relied solely on the testimony of alleged victims was Salem, Massachusetts and I don't recall that turning out so hot.
---

Smarkil posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

I think you need to understand what evidence is a little more. It's not just physical objects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Alright.

I'm accusing you of robbing my house.

When does the trial start?

Go on down to the police station and file the report, I'll be waiting
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

Chill fakebatman. You're victim blaming.

Not blaming anyone. If Smarkil had his house broken into by Foxx, that's awful - seems awfully out of character for her, but he must have good reason to accuse her, so I'm just waiting to hear what that is.

Zeus posted...

"They let you do it" = consent, assuming that his banter was true at all.

I earnestly hope you don't actually think that "not fighting back = consent." Because that's all kinds of fucking disgusting, dude.
---

darkknight109 posted...

OK, so, it's only a crime if you leave evidence behind? If I grope a woman's breasts, that's not a crime unless someone happened to catch it on camera?

I mean, maybe ten people were around who all saw me do it and are willing to testify to that, but if there's no evidence it's still not credible in your eyes?

If 10 people were around then it wouldn't be a he said she said case. There would be 10 people around to testify to the act committed. Physical evidence in itself is not necessary, but evidence that a crime was committed is. An alleged victim's testimony usually is not enough without something to corroborate the commission of a crime.

Corpus delecti is a legal term referring to the need to prove that a crime occurred before someone can be charged with the commission of the crime. It does NOT prove that someone committed a crime, simply that the crime occurred at all.

I've skimmed through the individual cases and there's little to make me believe they can prove the crimes even occurred. Personally, I believe they did, but that's not proof.

darkknight109 posted...

This is the thing that always bugs me about the "no physical evidence = no crime" group - there's a lot more to crime and criminal law than that etc.

There really isn't a lot more to crime and criminal law than that. If you can't prove that a crime happened, in the eyes of the law, it didn't. No, not everything needs to be coated in semen or beat the fuck up to prove a crime happened, but certainly more than ONE person (in the individual cases) needs to say they were there and saw it happen, whether it was true or not.

To your other point, the man is a public figure. A lot of people have met him. Someone that has a chip on their shoulder MAY be able to provide a time in which they met and use that as a point in time for which they were wronged. Again, that's why I would want something more than "he did it". Maybe, in the case of the woman on the flight, there was stewardess that saw something or another passenger. Give us something for gods sake. That would at least give us cause to investigate the situation.

darkknight109 posted...

I'm not saying that every accusation warrants an immediate execution, no questions asked - but a serious allegation demands a serious response, and if the accuser is able to provide corroborating details their allegations should be considered credible.

And what should that response be? What do you want Trump or his administration to do? Do we need to send a team of FBI agents to respond to all of these allegations? The burden here should be upon the lawyers of the women they represent. Let them find evidence and submit it to a court. To my knowledge, none of them have. All of them have just gotten up on the podium and told the world. Yet none of them have tried to take it to court (with the exception of a defamation lawsuit IIRC).

darkknight109 posted...

Keep in mind that various studies have shown that somewhere between 92% and 98% of sex assault allegations are legit, so the odds that you have one woman - let alone a dozen of them - all making false allegations are pretty slim.

Nearly 1 in 10-20 is way too fucking high of a number, and I suspect that number goes up considerably when you have money/are famous.

Call me crazy, but I'm one of those weirdos that would rather let a bunch of guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. Likewise when it comes to rape/assault accusations. It's an atrocious crime, but the alternative is far worse.
---

Smarkil posted...

Nearly 1 in 10-20 is way too fucking high of a number

That's in line or lower than the false report rate for other violent crimes such as robbery, assault, or murder.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Smarkil posted...

Nearly 1 in 10-20 is way too fucking high of a number

That's in line or lower than the false report rate for other violent crimes such as robbery, assault, or murder.

No shit?

If someone reported a robbery, assault, or a murder, I'd sure as fuck want proof it happened to. I also would not want an innocent man going to jail for those crimes either. I'm not singling rape out here.
---