President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I don't know that he did it but I tend to think he did. He sounds like a classic drunken, rich frat boy. But he isn't running for the softball league president here. This is a lifetime appointment to the SC. This type of behavior should be disqualifying.

 

Criminal, or just obnoxious?

 

No matter how long ago it occurred, or how well he's cleaned up since then? No second chances? No allowances for living what appears to be a quiet and uneventful life once he settled into the real world?
Once again, if questionable decisions and stupid behavior are going to follow you around for life, we're in for a hell of a shitstorm from here on out.

 

Troubling allegations, no doubt, and very specific questions that lead you to think there's fire with the smoke.
Some of Avenatti's questions, however, seem like they're along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your wife?":

1. Did you ever target one or more women for sex or rape at a house party? Did you ever assist Mark Judge or others in doing so?
Problem: If Kavanaugh ever tried to hook up, or played wingman for any of his frat brothers to try to hook up -- which is kind of what college kids do at house parties -- and he says no, he's guilty.

4. Did you ever participate in any sexual conduct with a woman at a house party whom you understood to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs?
Problem: If he ever so much as kissed a drunk girl at a party -- which, again, is kind of the point of a college house party -- he's done.

6. Did you ever object or prevent to attempt one or more men from participating in the rape, or taking advantage, of a woman at a house party?
Problem: He sees Judge or one of his drunk frat brothers heading to their bedroom with a drunk girl, who seems very willing if inebriated, and does nothing. Maybe even says hello as they both wave back, when it's obvious what they're about to do. Not only is he not "preventing the taking advantage of" the woman, he's suddenly portrayed as actively encouraging it. Boom. Roasted.

 

God no second chance in this case. Nobody is losing a SC gig because of streaking. He is accused of attempted rape and sticking his junk in a woman's face.

 

And if any of this bleeds over into criminal territory, I'll gladly change my tune and say throw the book at him. Most of the stuff so far seems to be more in the questionable/obnoxious territory, though.

 

It is criminal behavior.

Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended. Indecent exposure is often committed for the sexual gratification of the offender or committed to entice a sexual response.

In California, for instance, to be convicted of indecent exposure, the prosecution must prove an intent to sexually arouse, or sexually insult or offend. The California statute broadly and vaguely makes it a crime to willfully expose your genitals to someone else, motivated by a desire to sexually gratify yourself or offend or insult the other person.

Exposing one’s genitals means just that -- to show your bare genitals. Showing a bare female breast is not considered exposing one’s genitals (otherwise breastfeeding mothers might face indecent exposure charges). Similarly, flashing someone your under wear, no matter how revealing or skimpy, is not indecent exposure for purposes of most indecent exposure statutes, including California's.

That said, an indecent exposure charge reach the level of a sexual assault if any physical contact is made.​

Indecent Exposure - FindLaw

This is the sort of crime where the perp can find himself on the sexual offender registry if a pattern of behavior has been established.

And one has been established.

 

So "Fox & Friends" will be diving back into BENGHAZI! in a few short hours, right?

 

Two issues here:
1) He isn't asking for a second chance because he says he never needed one. He's maintaining his innocence. If, somehow, any of these charges are proven, he'll be exposed as a liar. DQ.
2) He can have his second chance and his redemption as soon as his victims are confident they're past the trauma. And that, as Trumpists have proven by threatening to kill her, is unlikely. Sexual assault -- and we're operating under the assumption here that he's guilty -- is a crime of lingering impact. It's an especially serious crime, and this is an especially serious and important gig we're talking about. The standards are higher than in almost any other endeavor. Or at least they should be.

Re: Franken. If I remember, there are seven accusers. Seven. If anybody thinks the thing with the photos is overblown and insufficient to nuke his career, remember there are six others. In order for Franken to be a victim, seven women have to be lying. Not likely. With Trump, the total of accusations is somewhere between 15 and 19.