It seems to me that it should be illegal, it is threatening to assault someone to the point of wrecking the rest of their life.
We live in a day and age where this type of assault can be just as devastating to someone’s life and family even though it doesn’t require direct physical contact.
just sayin…
It doesn’t change a thing about whether or not Clinton or Trump did what they have been accused of—they’re either rapists or they aren’t. But one guy is claiming he’s innocent of a horrible crime and the other is claiming that spousal rape isn’t a crime at all. I’d say that’s a pretty important difference when you’re talking about putting someone into a position of power shaping and enforcing the nation’s laws.
Everyone has a right to file a frivolous lawsuit. They don’t have the right to win though.
What’s especially infuriating is that anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit, file hundreds of do-nothing motions in order to bleed the defendant dry, then settle out of court.
It’s gotten to the point where a significant portion of cases are in reality just shakedowns. The plaintiff always maintains the ability to walk away when they feel like they’ve hit the inflection on the Time-vs-Money graph, and maximize their profits, while the defendant can’t usually ask for a dismissal unless the circumstances are obviously fraud-on-the-court.
Essentially if you have a little more money as a plaintiff than the defendant you’re suing, you can always extract money from the poorer party, legally, by mining the US justice system.
Tomorrow DT will call Ivana an idiot and a looser.
That video was amazing, and it used both “This mortal coil” AND “Burial” for background music. I mean, fuck, I want to have that video’s baby.
i sometimes wonder if trump’s candidacy is a deliberate attempt to make someone like walker seem suddenly sane.
Well, to be fair, we don’t know that Trump believes that to be the case, since it was said by his lawyer. Hell, we don’t even know if his lawyer believes that to be the case, since he was only saying it as a strategy to shut some people up from publicizing the allegations. Given his generally sleazy approach, he may have been deliberately lying through his teeth on this point as well, just to intimidate through obfuscation. This part of his strategy seems to be: you can’t say The Donald was accused of rape because what he was accused of wasn’t legally rape and therefore calling it that would constitute libel, and anyone engaging in libel is going to get sued. It doesn’t seem like a great legal strategy because it’s such obvious bullshit, but even obvious bullshit works to scare some people.
I live in Australia far away from this creep but I still feel kinda dirty after reading that. Can we have a unicorn chaser please?
He’s detestable. But I think he’s the likely candidate if they don’t want Jeb Bush.
Spousal rape is a crime. Which jurisdiction? Here’s an excerpt from the Calif. Penal Code section as an example:
262(a) Rape of a person who is the spouse of the perpetrator is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.
(2) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the accused.
(3) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
© Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.
(4) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.
(5) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
OK, for the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true.
That means Trump’s defense is, basically, “I’m not really a horrible fucking scumbag. I’m getting off on a technicality which means it’s totally OK and you should vote for me.”
…actually, that sounds a whole lot like every corporate lawyer I’ve ever heard. Huh.
And everyone that supports him.
Since Humphrey was nominated …
[quote=“sdmikev, post:52, topic:62601, full:true”]
And everyone that supports him.
[/quote]Oh, I don’t know … I kinda want him to get the Republican nomination, as that just might finally cause the GOP to lose a large portion of their support base as people see just how pro-corporate anti-populous they really are.
Then again, these are the dumbfucks that believe in trickle-down economics, think an international conspiracy of scientists are faking global warming to rake in huge $$ in grants, and believe that a secular government means death squads killing Christians in the streets, so that’s probably a pipe dream…
And transitively
Well shit, guess that automatically excludes cops, because who will arrest one of the brothers in blue?
From the article:
“How offensive,” shot back Dollyne Pettingill, spokeswoman for the mayor of Indianapolis, where Tyson committed the assault. “We have a judicial process for these matters and it’s not for sale.”
That seems to be Trump’s fundamental problem: that he believes everything, literally everything is for sale.
If a lawyer starts using swear words to intimidate a potential defendant, that’s because they don’t have a case. Real lawyers can stick the knife in while being very polite.
Is Trumpland an alternative reality which is leaking through into this one?
Well, no - even assuming it occurred prior to 1984 he still raped Ivana, it just wasn’t illegal at the time. Which is basically also what the lawyer is asserting; “yeah, sure, he raped her. But they were married, so it’s fiiiiiine.”
That’s why I said it’s bad PR, as distinct from bad lawyering.
