Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 52: Line 52:
--[[User:Jeffsyrop|Jeffsyrop]] ([[User talk:Jeffsyrop|talk]]) 01:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
--[[User:Jeffsyrop|Jeffsyrop]] ([[User talk:Jeffsyrop|talk]]) 01:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=903525027&oldid=903492767 I added it a few weeks ago, but it was reverted per 2016 consensus]. Maybe it's time to revisit the consensus. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=903525027&oldid=903492767 I added it a few weeks ago, but it was reverted per 2016 consensus]. Maybe it's time to revisit the consensus. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It should be overruled. There is more than enough material and witness testimony by two witnesses. It's probably the most serious and disturbing cases of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits

[[User:Verificity|Verificity]] ([[User talk:Verificity|talk]]) 18:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


==12- and 13-year-old girls==
==12- and 13-year-old girls==

Revision as of 18:03, 11 August 2019

Rape lawsuit and affidavits

As per Bassett, Laura (July 11, 2019). "When Does America Reckon with the Gravity of Donald Trump's Alleged Rapes?". GQ. I propose that we link to the Donald Trump & Jeffrey Epstein Rape Lawsuit and Affidavits alongside describing Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's plea bargain offer allowing Epstein to avoid jail time for the alleged sexual abuse of, "nearly three dozen girls, mostly 13-16 years old, at his Palm Beach mansion from 1999 to 2006," when he was alleged to have used the girls and staff to help recruit other young girls, sometimes booking "three or four girls a day." I propose that the plea bargain be referred to as a "hush payment," because of mainstream news reports such as this, and the plea bargain terms which were rejected by a Federal Judge because they did not include a way to notify the victims of the status and whereabouts of the convicted. EllenCT (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Needs to Include Katie Johnson!

It seems very strange that the allegations of this lower-middle-class nail shop girl don't "count" while the allegations of the 18 more "respectable" women do. It's a huge oversight since her two court filings are real and serious allegations. Here[1] is the latest version. Read the affidavits of Katie Johnson and her witness starting around the 15th page.

--Jeffsyrop (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added it a few weeks ago, but it was reverted per 2016 consensus. Maybe it's time to revisit the consensus. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be overruled. There is more than enough material and witness testimony by two witnesses. It's probably the most serious and disturbing cases of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits

Verificity (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12- and 13-year-old girls

Are the two underage girls (then aged 12 and 13) Donald J. Trump has been accused (along with Jeffrey Epstein) of raping mentioned in this article? link? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No: those accusations have been retracted, and it has been decided by RfC not to mention them, see Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 8#RfC: Jane Doe content. — JFG talk 18:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately: the lawsuit was dropped, not necessarily that the accusations were retracted. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right: the story was ginned up a few days before the 2016 election, and dropped shortly afterwards. Barring the appearance of any new facts in that case, there is no reason to re-open it here. — JFG talk 20:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing it should be reopened. I'm saying that your characterization is incorrect. The original suit was filed in April 2016, and Doe canceled her scheduled November 2 press conference allegedly because she received threats, then dropped the suit. She has not recanted, and the suit included a sworn affidavit from a woman who claimed Epstein employed her to procure underage girls, and that she eyewitnessed the assaults. soibangla (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, JFG. That the lawsuit was dropped is no proof or even evidence that the story was "ginned up". But I support the RfC result, nothing has changed enough since then to warrant a revisit. ―Mandruss  22:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "ginned up" doesn't mean what I think it means. Certainly the story was timed so as to get the most political bang for the buck. ―Mandruss  22:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extensive history documented in this article, and the well-documented long friendship of the two men, I am less inclined to reflexively presume a political motive by Doe, unless warning America against electing a monster as president can be considered "political." soibangla (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've speculated enough. ―Mandruss  23:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]