Trump Given A Subpoena For All Documents Relating To Assault Allegations

a reply to: Gryphon66

Before I ask this question - let me please add a disclaimer... I am NOT trying to be rude to you. I am seriously wanting your opinion. I think differently about this issue and maybe, my thought process IS part of the problem. So, I am trying to really understand the other point of view.

Now... as a woman (almost 50), but also a mother of two sons (one adult, one teen)... I really want to better understand this point. If a woman doesn't say no to sexual advances - doesn't oppose in any way - how can it be considered assault just because "deep inside" [silently] she didn't want it to happen? How are men supposed to know this if the woman says or does nothing to indicate she didn't want it to happen [implied consent]?

Again, as the mom of two sons, I am genuinely trying to figure this out. Because how do "we" (people, men, etc.) know she didn't want to proceed then if she didn't say or do anything to indicate that? How do we know she didn't change her mind later because at the time, she thought the "exchange" would lead to something (a job, relationship, etc.) and when it didn't, she then felt "used" and decided to cry foul.

Thus, any man should basically get signed consent first? Or really and truly ask, "Is this okay?" And even then, there have been cases that have been tried - and I think we will see more of them - where women said it was okay and later, came back and said, "Well, I didn't really mean it was okay."

How is THAT okay? It FEELS or SEEMS like all this is basically setting men up so that - if they don't do (after the "exchange") what the woman expected them to do (such as give them a job, enter a relationship), it's assault? It seems like such a slippery slope...

a reply to: nicevillegrl

You have a point, however you may want to teach your sons to respect women so that when they are old enough for courtship they understand not to be forceful in their desire. Probably to teach them people are not a means to their end in general but rather the end.

To be conscious of mutual signs of adoration and possibly even ask if this is ok.

Because honestly you never know what kind of scarring has already taken place, by the statistics it's pretty prevelant.

But yes some women will do anything for power. Like men as well. Women can use sexuality over biology to try and get what they want, men have it different by design.

However some one like Kim Kardashian willing to put out a sex tape and take constant nude shots and selfies shouldn't be complaining about the paparazzi taken shots of her without photoshop present as a metaphor.

Just my opinion father of 3 kids in a coed family.

a reply to: windword

A man should be able to have a meal in the company of a woman without sexually assaulting her.

Or being accused of sexual assault when it didn't happen, which happens a lot now a days.

The fact that you, and other's like Sebastian Gorka, think that's the only think keeping Mike Pence from sexually assaulting women is a concern.

The fact that you think that was what I was implying shows your cognitive capacity is what you should be concerned about.

a reply to: nicevillegrl


Here's what Gorka said:

“THINK: If Weinstein had obeyed @VP Pence's rules for meeting with the opposite sex, none of those poor women would ever have been abused,” Gorka tweeted Tuesday.
www.newsweek.com...

In other words, the only thing stopping Mike Pence from sexually assaulting women are his rules about not meeting with the opposite sex without his wife being present. That's unacceptable.

Shutting women out because men can't control themselves is not the answer. Shutting women out because they may cry "sexual assault" falsely is just a red herring.

a reply to: 3daysgone


You seem to continually need to be reminded of what you said:

Remember when people called Pence stupid for not having dinner with women unless his wife was present?

He doesn't sound very stupid now.

He sounds like a creepy sex pervert who has to be supervised by his wife to avoid sexually assaulting women who he finds himself alone with.

a reply to: windword

You seem to continually need to be reminded of what you said:

You should read it again.

He sounds like a creepy sex pervert who has to be supervised by his wife to avoid sexually assaulting women who he finds himself alone with.

He sounds more like a man who sees what is going on in this world, so he will take every precaution to protect him and his family.
The one's that think he sounds like a creepy sex pervert are the one's that would believe false allegations, hence his reasoning.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: 3daysgone


You seem to continually need to be reminded of what you said:

Remember when people called Pence stupid for not having dinner with women unless his wife was present?

He doesn't sound very stupid now.

He sounds like a creepy sex pervert who has to be supervised by his wife to avoid sexually assaulting women who he finds himself alone with.

the man is a sex addict. its a mental disease isnt it? SO supervision is perscribed to people with mental conditions all the time.

a reply to: yuppa


Mike Pence is a sex addict? I mean, his hatred of gays and rule about women kinda betrays that, but I didn't know it was a matter of public knowledge!

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: 3daysgone


You seem to continually need to be reminded of what you said:

Remember when people called Pence stupid for not having dinner with women unless his wife was present?

He doesn't sound very stupid now.

He sounds like a creepy sex pervert who has to be supervised by his wife to avoid sexually assaulting women who he finds himself alone with.

the man is a sex addict. its a mental disease isnt it? SO supervision is perscribed to people with mental conditions all the time.

lol. That is what they would have you believe. But it is the pervert that would prefer his wife not to be at dinner.

a reply to: windword

Ah... I understand what you meant now.

a reply to: luthier

Great points. I definitely would like to think I have done that (teach them the things you mention) - but of course, it is a never-ending mission too. As in, an education in respect and proper behavior that should never - and won't ever - stop.

As I can sense you probably do as well, we actually talk about these things a lot. I've watched not only the media but - in the community - these scenarios "go bad" in the life of adults and even some teens in real life. A couple have been "real" and a few have been proven to be "buyer's remorse" scenarios. In the meantime, even those involved in the latter have seen their lives get destroyed while the true events were being established.

So we discuss all of this quite a bit actually. Making sure they know the risks - hopefully, in advance of them ever needing to make these types of decisions. It's just kind of scary because these days, it almost seems as if there is very little burden of proof required for accusations to not only be made, but adjudicated in the court of public opinion. Even in cases where there was total fabrication. Crazy times we live in!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Umm... yes. That is rape. It's no different than if a boss tells a secretary to put out if she wants to keep her job. It's abusing a power structure to create an advanage. Given the power dynamics at play, it's worse than rape actually.

originally posted by: nicevillegrl
Now... as a woman (almost 50), but also a mother of two sons (one adult, one teen)... I really want to better understand this point. If a woman doesn't say no to sexual advances - doesn't oppose in any way - how can it be considered assault just because "deep inside" [silently] she didn't want it to happen? How are men supposed to know this if the woman says or does nothing to indicate she didn't want it to happen [implied consent]?

You have to take context into account. Reasons a woman could say no. Power differences, the situation, etc... there's plenty of reasons to not fight back or say no. In Weinsteins case he was threatening to ruin peoples careers if they didn't go along. That's a power imbalance. In Trumps case he was rumored to threaten violence in many cases, while in others he threatened careers. In others he went full on prostitution and offered money.

It's pretty simple really. If you aren't sure... don't do it and how do we know she didn't change her mind? That's the thing, consent can be changed after the act because the other person didn't follow through on whatever terms the two people laid out... the guy misrepresented who/what he was, offered something and didn't follow through, etc... those situations are rape.

So how to be sure? Simple. Don't misrepresent yourself or the situation. Honesty and not overpowering people can go a long way.

a reply to: loam

This is the same lady that beg Trump to go to her Restaurant Grand opening just a year ago. I guess she must have a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome. not.....

a reply to: loam

All I have to read is Gloria Allred... This is nothing again and no substance. This was an old story before the election.

This is all about Weinstein and deflection. Bill Clinton..yup!

I had a friend who was ugly as sin and 300 lbs who ran a restaurant. He was loaded. Like, 100+ mil loaded. He was sued ALL the time for harrassment. I knew for a FACT he was not doing anything. He stopped attending his own work parties. A quick check. When people have that much money it is cheaper to settle and move on in most cases.

The media has been barking up this try since he announced his run. Like everything else....where is the true hard evidence?

Unbelievable that people still fall for this angle.

It is what they used to take down Bill O'Reilly, Julian Assange and god knows how many others. They tried using the same method against Hannity, who managed to successfully fight the baseless allegations. My guess is that it failed against Sean Hannity because they tried it right after O'Reilly's political character assassination. The musician Nelly was even unsuccessfully targeted by this within the past several weeks.

I personally wear a body camera any time I'm in public (meh, I carry a firearm), but it is ridiculous the lengths some liars will go to in order to beat someone. It is equally ridiculous the lengths honest people have to go to in order to defend themselves against a mere statement that is used in lieu of actual evidence.

I'm sure Trump will prevail in this instance just as he has every other time someone started flinging evidence-less allegations at him.

Thankfully my daughter knows better than to falsely accuse someone. Because good parenting. She would own up to any mistake she made, like the woman she is. It is very unlikely she'd ever have to accuse anyone of rape. In public (and usually private), she carries a .45 ACP I purchased for her 21st birthday and has her head on a swivel. Any potential rapist would be shot dead in the blink of an eye: from the time she draws from concealment to the time she pulls the trigger was 0.98 seconds two weekends ago. Her boyfriend and her dated for 8 months before he was staying with her, and she wouldn't have random people around anyhow. Did I mention he also carries? Glock 20. 10mm.

a reply to: JBurns

So what's she going to do when she's living paycheck to paycheck and her boss offers her a promotion in exchange for some favors? Her choices are to go along with it and get promoted, or say no and get fired.

That's still rape, and she won't be within her rights to shoot him in that case.

a reply to: Aazadan


That isn't rape, not by any legal definition anyhow. Knowing her, she'd tell him to go pound salt and I'd empty my bank account/mortgage my house to sue the guy & help her get by until she found a new job. She is a network engineer so it is my hope she could find something else quickly.

I do believe that would constitute sexual harassment. When she started carrying concealed, I tried to get her to wear an Axon body cam but she did not want to. We compromised on a pocket carried pen that has video/audio capabilities (pen cam), which to my knowledge is still a part of her EDC load out. I also got her a Benchmade CQB spike for really up close and personal social activities.

I realize not everyone out there is living the same circumstances, but you always have a choice to say no. If the creep won't accept that answer or tries to take you by surprise, then deadly force is totally justified. In addition, I believe some basic OPSEC precautions will help us all avoid people and situations that may be dangerous or recognize someone that may be conducting some hostile surveillance/planning against you.

There are always opportunities during the various phases of an attack where the perpetrator is vulnerable to recognition and countermeasures. There will always be laws to prosecute those who break the law (including rapists, kidnappers and murders), but I'd like to see a society that makes those criminals tremble in fear because they know their intended victim just may be able to put a serious hurt on them.

As far as the OP goes, the allegations are unproven and the fact that a subpoena was issued is meaningless. Anyone can bring a civil suit against another person (including the President) by simply paying court filing fees (usually ~$100.00). This entitles you to discovery process, and the ability to subpoena articles relevant to the litigation. I am not saying the allegations can't possibly be true, rather that one is innocent until proven guilty (since anyone can accuse anyone of anything). If evidence comes to light proving guilt, the game changes.

I do however believe the allegations follow a very similar trend, which is often used to politically assassinate people these individuals don't like. They use the legal system as a pawn in their vendetta, while using the media to smear the object of their hateful obsession. Even once allegations are proven false, permanent damage to the real victim's reputation has been done. I am happy to see some cases of this prosecuted as felonies lately, though. With real penalties, I think the false reporters will move on to another tactic and stop piggybacking on the real victims of these terrible crimes. It is the ultimate inhumane action: to evoke the pain and tragedy of a true victim for the purpose of self-enrichment or revenge.

a reply to: loamso now we know why hollyweird sacrificed harvey wenstein to launch a fervor storm of epic size so media could flip it at potus how sad. democraps using suffering of others again.