| I have done that. And the answer is a clear “yes.” These allegations are credible. They ought not be ignored.  Mainstream media, I’m looking at you.
 1. Consider the Context:  Mr. Trump’s Overt, Even Proud Misogyny
 
 The rape case must be viewed through the  lens of Mr. Trump’s current, longstanding and well documented contempt for  women. Men who objectify women are more likely to become  perpetrators of s*xual violence, just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime.
 
 Mr.  Trump has relished calling women “dogs,” “slobs” and “pigs,” and cyberstalked  and derided journalist Megyn Kelly for having the temerity to ask him to defend  his own words. He threw out the most misogynist of attacks, attempting to  undermine her professionalism by accusing her of menstruating. He’s cruelly ridiculed  the appearance of a female opponent (Carly Fiorina) and an opponent’s wife  (Heidi Cruz). His campaign even openly acknowledged that it disqualified all women for  consideration as his vice-president.
 
 Mr.  Trump has a long history of debasing women he’s worked with,  crossing the line on a regular basis. He’s taken lifelong joy in objectifying  women, including his proclamation: “Women, you have  to treat ‘em like shit.”
 
 This cannot be ignored. Decades of  abusive language does not make him a rapist. But it does show us who the man is:  a callous, meanspirited misogynist who no sane person would leave alone with  her daughter. As Dr. Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they really  are, believe them.”
 
 2. More context: two prior  s*xual assault court claims have been made against Mr. Trump
 
 But Mr. Trump has been accused of worse than  just misogynist language. Two prior women have accused Mr. Trump, in court  documents, of actual or attempted s*xual assault. (Mr. Trump denies all the  allegations.)
 
 Under oath, Ivana Trump accused Mr. Trump of a  violent rape.
 
 First was Ivana Trump, Donald Trump’s first  wife, who said under oath in a 1989 deposition that he had violently attacked  her, ripped out her hair and forcibly penetrated her without her consent.  According to the Daily Beast, she claims he was wildly angry that she’d referred him to a  cosmetic surgeon who had botched a “scalp reduction” job (to cover a bald spot)  and caused pain in his scalp - hence the vindictive yanking on her hair. At the  time Ms. Trump said she felt “violated” by the alleged “rape.”
 
 A few years later, after their divorce was  settled, Ms. Trump claimed that she did not mean the word “rape” in a “literal  or criminal” sense.
 
 Note: virtually every settlement of a case  involving a high profile person paying money to a former spouse - or anyone -  requires the person receiving the money to agree in writing to ironclad  nondisparagement and confidentiality. In plain English: you promise to be quiet  and not say anything bad about the party paying you money. This has been the  case in hundreds of settlement agreements I have worked on over the years. Ms.  Trump was almost certainly contractually prohibited after she signed from  saying anything negative about Mr. Trump. And it is also common to attempt to  “cure” prior negative statements with new agreed-to language - like, I didn’t mean it literally. (You didn’t  mean forcible penetration literally?)
 
 A business acquaintance accused Mr. Trump of s*xual harassment and “attempted rape”.
 
 A second woman accused Donald Trump of s*xual  assault, in 1997. According to The Guardian, then thirty-four year old Jill  Harth alleged in a federal lawsuit that Trump violated her “physical and mental  integrity” when he touched her intimately without consent after her husband  went into business with him, leaving her “emotionally devastated [and]  distraught.” The lawsuit called the multiple acts “attempted rape.” Shortly  thereafter she voluntarily withdrew the case when a parallel suit against Mr.  Trump brought by her husband was settled. When The Guardian reached the woman in 2016 to ask whether she stood by  her s*xual assault allegations, she responded, “yes.”
 
 In a court filing, according to a report, Ms.  Harth alleged that while she and her husband were trying to do a business deal  with Mr. Trump regarding a beauty pageant, he repeatedly propositioned her for  $e× and groped her, culminating in this frightening alleged incident:
 
 Trump forcefully removed (Harth) from public areas of  Mar-A-Lago in Florida and forced (her) into a bedroom belonging to defendant’s  daughter Ivanka, wherein (Trump) forcibly kissed, fondled, and restrained (her)  from leaving, against (her) will and despite her protests.” In the court  document, she said that Trump bragged that he ”would be the best lover you ever  have.”
 
 Recently Donald Trump issued a statement that  women’s claims of s*xual harassment, documented in a lengthy New York Times investigation which included Ms. Harth’s lawsuit, were “made up.”
 
 Jill Harth responded angrily on Twitter last  week: “My part was true. I didn’t talk. As usual you opened your big mouth.”
 
 In other words, she is standing by her story.
 
 3. The  new Jane Doe child rape claim against Mr. Trump is consistent with verifiable  facts about Mr. Trump and his friend Jeffrey Epstein, and has a powerful  witness statement attached to it.
 
 A third woman accused Mr. Trump of rape very  recently. According to the Daily [ prohibido ], a woman filed an April 2016  lawsuit claiming that when she was thirteen years old she was held as a $e×  slave to Mr. Trump and his friend Jeffrey Epstein. The woman claimed to have a  witness, “Tiffany Doe,” to the incidents. She filed the case in pro per, that is, without the  assistance of a lawyer.
 
 The case was dismissed by the court for  technical filing errors. She then obtained a lawyer and the case was modified and refiled in New York federal court,  against Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein.
 
 I’ve carefully reviewed this federal complaint.  It is now much stronger than the one she filed on her own, which makes sense  because she now has an experienced litigator representing her. Jane Doe says  that as a thirteen year old, she was enticed to attend parties at the home of  Jeffrey Epstein with the promise of money modeling jobs. Mr. Epstein is a notorious   “billionaire pedophile” who is now a Level 3 registered  $e× offender - the most dangerous kind, “a threat to public safety” — after  being convicted of misconduct with another underage girl.
 
 Jane Doe says that Mr. Trump “initiated s*xual  contact” with her on four occasions in 1994. Since she was thirteen at the  time, consent is not an issue. If Mr. Trump had any type s*xual contact with  her in 1994, it was a crime.
 
 On the fourth incident, she says Mr. Trump tied  her to a bed and forcibly raped her, in a “savage s*xual attack,” while she  pleaded with him to stop. She says Mr. Trump violently struck her in the face.  She says that afterward, if she ever revealed what he had done, Mr. Trump  threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed.”  She says she has been in fear of him ever since.
 
 New York’s five year statute of limitations on  this claim - the legal deadline for filing — has long since run. However, Jane  Doe’s attorney, Thomas Meagher, argues in his court filing that because she was  threatened by Mr. Trump, she has been under duress all this time, and therefore  she should be permitted additional time to come forward. Legally, this is  calling “tolling” - stopping the clock, allowing more time to file the case. As  a result, the complaint alleges, Jane Doe did not have “freedom of will to  institute suit earlier in time.” He cites two New York cases which I have read  and which do support tolling
 
 Two unusual documents are attached to Jane Doe’s  complaints - sworn declarations attesting to the facts. The first is from Jane  Doe herself, telling her horrific story, including the allegation that Jeffrey  Epstein also raped her and threatened her into silence, and this stunner:
 
 Defendant Epstein then  attempted to strike me about the head with his closed fists while he angrily  screamed at me that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who took my  virginity, not Defendant Trump . . .
 
 And this one:
 
 Defendant Trump stated that I  shouldn’t ever say anything if I didn’t want to disappear like Maria, a  12-year-old female that was forced to be involved in the third incident with  Defendant Trump and that I had not seen since that third incident, and that he  was capable of having my whole family killed.
 
 The second declaration is even more  astonishing, because it is signed by “Tiffany Doe”, Mr. Epstein’s “party  planner” from 1991-2000. Tiffany Doe says that her duties were “to get  attractive adolescent women to attend these parties.” (Adolescents are,  legally, children.
 
 Tiffany Doe says that she recruited  Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr.  Epstein’s parties, and actually witnessed  the s*xual assaults on Jane Doe:
 
 I personally witnessed the  Plaintiff being forced to perform various s*xual acts with Donald J. Trump and  Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years  old.
 
 It is exceedingly rare for a s*xual  assault victim to have a witness. But Tiffany Doe says:
 
 I personally witnessed four  s*xual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during  this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly  raped her despite her pleas to stop.
 
 Tiffany Doe corroborates, based on her  own personal observations, just about everything in Jane Doe’s complaint: that  twelve year old Maria was involved in a $e× act with Mr. Trump, that Mr. Trump  threatened the life of Jane Doe if she ever revealed what happened, and that  she would “disappear” like Maria if she did.
 
 Tiffany Doe herself says that she is  in mortal fear of Mr. Trump to this day:
 I am coming forward to swear  to the truthfulness of the physical and s*xual abuse that I personally  witnessed of minor females at the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein . . . I  swear to these facts under the penalty for perjury even though I fully  understand that the life of myself and my family is now in grave danger.
 
 Given all this, and based on the record thus  far, Jane Doe’s claims appear credible. Mr. Epstein’s own s*xual crimes and  parties with underage girls are well documented, as is Mr. Trump’s relationship  with him two decades ago in New York City. Mr. Trump told a reporter a few years ago: “I’ve  known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s 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. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
 
 Powerfully, Jane Doe appears to have an eyewitness to all aspects of her claim,  a witness who appears to have put herself in substantial danger by coming  forward, because at a minimum Mr. Epstein knows her true identity.
 
 Jane Doe has not granted any interviews, and we  don’t know anything about her background, or Tiffany Doe’s, or the details of  their stories. Much information needs to be revealed to fully assess this case.  Perhaps they will be discredited on cross-examination. Perhaps they will  recant. But if we’re going to speculate in that direction, we should speculate  in the other direction as well. Perhaps Jane Doe and her lawyer will have more evidence and witnesses to  corroborate her claim. Perhaps witnesses from Mr. Epstein’s notorious parties  will come forward. We just can’t know any of that at this point.
 
 But based on what we do know now, Jane Doe’s  claims fall squarely into the long, ugly context of Mr. Trump’s life of  misogyny, are consistent with prior s*xual misconduct claims, are backed up by  an eyewitness, and thus should be taken seriously. Her claims merit sober  consideration and investigation.
 
 We live in a world where wealthy, powerful men  often use and abuse women and girls. While these allegations may shock some, as  a lawyer who represents women in s*xual abuse cases every day, I can tell you  that sadly, they are common, as is an accuser’s desire to remain anonymous, and  her terror in coming forward.
 
 What do you call a nation that refuses to even  look at s*xual assault claims against a man seeking to lead the free world?
 Responder |