People in glass Trump Towers shouldn’t throw stones — or, perhaps, throw around accusations of rape, as one Donald Trump did recently in his now infamous remarks suggesting that Mexican immigrants are a bunch of rapists.
A must-read story yesterday in The Daily Beast points out that Trump is not only a rape accuser of sorts, but someone who was once very publicly accused of rape — by his now-former wife Ivana Trump, who, in a deposition in her divorce case against the Donald in the early 90s, said that she’s been attacked one night by her then husband in a fit of rage, screaming at her and pulling out her hair before ripping off her clothes and raping her.
The Beast reports that, according to Lost Tycoon, a 1993 book about Trump by journalist Harry Hurt III, Ivana told her closest friends that “he raped me.” Later, though, in a statement she provided through Trump’s lawyers, and that was reprinted in the book as “A Notice to Readers,” Ivana backed away from the R-word, saying that
[a]s a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.
Make of that what you will.
At the time, the Daily Beast notes, Trump declared the account in the book
incorrect and done by a guy without much talent … He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.
Very Trumpian.
But even more remarkable than this bizarre denial was the even Trumpier response that Michael Cohen, one of Trump’s lawyers, gave to the Daily Beast writer who asked him about the allegations:
You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody.
Evidently one cannot be a rapist if one is polling better than Jeb Bush.
Cohen continued:
And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.
As the Beast points out, Cohen is completely wrong here. Not only is marital rape illegal in New York state now; it was illegal in New York state in 1989, the date of the alleged rape.
Perhaps sensing he wasn’t getting anywhere with the “you can’t rape your spouse” angle, “Trump’s lawyer then changed tactics,” the Beast reports,
lobbing insults and threatening a lawsuit if a story was published.
“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”
“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up…for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet…you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.
Someone’s a bit grouchy.
Cohen continued, telling the Beast that
there is nothing reasonable about you wanting to write a story about somebody’s usage of the word ‘rape,’ when she’s talking [about] she didn’t feel emotionally satisfied.”
“Though there’s many literal senses to the word, if you distort it, and you put Mr. Trump’s name there onto it, rest assured, you will suffer the consequences. So you do whatever you want. You want to ruin your life at the age of 20? You do that, and I’ll be happy to serve it right up to you,” he added.
Given that the Beast ran the story, and we’re talking about it now, it kind of, sort of, appears that Cohen’s Trumpian lawyering backfired a little bit. And that’s a very good thing, because this is a story that needs to be re-aired.
You know, even if Donald happens to be 100% innocent, his lawyer acting in a unprofessional manner. Couldn’t he have just said “My client denies the claims made against him by the Daily Beast”?
He claimed all the Jewish people agreed with his comment? Like, all the Jewish people in what sense?
All the Jewish people he talked to about it? (Has he talked to any Jews about his comment?)
All the Jewish people in the world agreed with it? Because I can prove that wrong right now. I am a Jewish person who completely disagrees with his comment. Thus there exists a Jewish person who disagrees with his comment. Therefore, not all Jewish people agree with his comment. QED.
74% of American Jews voted for Obama in 2008, and 70% voted for him in 2012, so after four years of Obama in office 7 out of 10 American Jews still liked him. Even if every Jew who didn’t vote for Obama in 2012 and 30% of those who did all believed that Obama would “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven”, you would only just barely get a majority of American Jews agreeing with your statement. Which wouldn’t even be the same thing as “all” at, well, all.
Why do Republicans always think Jews are on their side? We’re not. We’re really, really not. Yes, you’re the party that supports Israel much more strongly, but Jews still don’t like you. Exit polls have had Jews voting around 70% Democrat/ 30% Republican since exit polling began, and that +40 Democratic split is actually even wider if you control for socio-economic status. (Sorry, yes, that is a stereotype, but it’s also statistically supported. I’d link to it here, but my computer is going really slowly and I’m getting like 2-5 minutes of rainbow pinwheel whenever I try to open a new window. If you really want me to link to sources, I can restart my computer and hope that it gets better.)
“Donald Trump has previously denied the allegation. In the book, he denies having had the scalp reduction surgery.
‘It’s obviously false,’ Donald Trump said of the accusation in 1993, according to Newsday. ‘It’s incorrect and done by a guy without much talent… He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.'”
Anybody else get the impression he’s more upset about being accused of bald spot surgery than of rape?
@Tilikum Did you read the part where part of her divorce settlement is a GAG ORDER and if she talks about any of this in a way not approved by Trump, she could lose everything?
Wait, wait, hang on.
Is Michael Cohen Trump’s lawyer? Because both the Daily Beast article linked here and another describe him as a campaign manager for Trump’s presidential run. I’m so confused…
Delphi_ote, what was the article where they through Cohen under the bus? Because he most certainly is affiliated with the presidential campaign.
Anisky,
Well, to be fair he didn’t say “all the” that was my hyperbole. He said “the response from Jewish people has been overwhelmingly positive.” Which I guess he means he talked to Sheldon Adelson or some other right wing Jewish person and assumed they were speaking for all Jews.
http://gawker.com/mike-huckabee-jews-loved-my-holocaust-tweet-1720591060
Or, at least appears to be… The exact words were “special counsel.” Which is still pretty up there in terms of affiliation with Trump.
Given what Cohen said to the Daily Beast, it seems extremely likely that Ivana has also been threatened and intimidated into changing her story.
When someone makes contradictory statements, which do you believe? Not the one she made later that happens to agree with the person who has a huge amount of power over her.
@ Aniisky
“@Tilikum Did you read the part where part of her divorce settlement is a GAG ORDER and if she talks about any of this in a way not approved by Trump, she could lose everything?”
Whoa. Are you suggesting that Ms. Trump the former willfully signed a legal document where she agreed to her silence of his criminality for money?? To preserve her lifestyle?
Jesus that’s some craven shaming if that’s what you are suggesting!
I prefer to trust women and their choices and take them at face value, thanks.
As a woman, I choose to call you a fucking asshole, Tilikum.
Hell, as an empathetic human being, I’m calling Tilikum a fucking asshole.
@Tilikum
“Her divorce involved a gag order that keeps her from talking about her marriage to Donald Trump without his permission.”
Not “suggesting” anything. Just stating a fact. And I’m not shaming anyone– you’re the one suggesting that someone signing divorce papers that involve a gag order because that’s her best option is something shameful.
“Hey, she said it was fine. What? You’re suggesting that she lied just because someone had a gun to her head? I choose to trust women. The gun to her head has no relevance to what she says. You’re being offensive by claiming that she would lie to preserve her life.”
Agreed– as a woman and an empathetic human being (gasp), I say Tilikum is an asshole.
Also, don’t forget that Huckabee said this.
A racist scam artist, domestic abuser and rapist vs an anti-Semitic, transphobic paedophilia apologist: But the GOP isn’t bigoted!!!1
Wonder if @Tilikum’s stance of “I trust women” extends to the forty-some women who say Bill Cosby raped them?
I’m an asshole or Ms.Trump can’t be trusted? Those choices are what you took from my plea to trust the judgement of women in thier own lives?
Wow. Just wow. What the hell kinda weird upside down world am I in???? Hell, I’d trust her judgement anywhere.
“Although the settlement remains sealed by the courts it is rumored that Ivana received $20 million, the $14 million family estate in Connecticut, a $5 million housing allowance, $350,000 annual alimony, all of her jewelry and 49% of Mar-A-Lago, the family home in Palm Beach which also serves as a private club for the …”
@Tilikum
FIFY
Yes Anisky it does. Camille Paglia hit that right on the head re: Cosby’s proclivity to a pseudo necrophilia.
Also, Tilikum, you’ve fallen into the same trap as many a dipshit before you:
If you want to troll successfully, don’t use the same username and avatar here as you use on Chateau Heartiste. Google is a thing that exists.
… Unless you want me to find comments of yours such as this.
Trollicum,
You’re still avoiding the topic of Cohen’s assertion that marital rape is impossible. That was what the post was about.
@Tilikum
It’s amazing that you don’t understand that Trump likely blackmailed the shit out of her and used his money as a silencing tactic. Look how fucking sue happy he is – you don’t think he would drag her through the court system and do everything in his power to fuck up her life if she outright says he raped her? The gag order was signed so they could legally drag her through shit and have her living on the streets if it was ever broken, not that Trump wouldn’t do that to her if she didn’t sign it anyway.
You’re a fucking asshole if you don’t fucking understand this shit.
In case y’all are unfamiliar with Trollicum, he’s a faithful manurespherian fond of saying, among other memorable things, that women, unlike men, are fungible animals, and relating to them is akin to husbandry. He’s one of the nastiest misogynist assholes in the ‘sphere, so of course he’d exhort to ‘trust women’ in this case, lol.
@Tilikum:
Look, I’m gonna have to be blunt here, because you seem to be willfully misunderstanding. Ivana testified in court that Trump basically raped her, although she said that she wouldn’t characterize the scenario as rape in the legal sense. This is the story that was shared in the Daily Beast article. Today, she claims that that story, based on her own testimony and her own words, that that story is “totally without merit.”
Two things to consider.
One, this new statement is coming 30 years after the incident, under the context of Trump lashing out against the Daily Beast for bringing this story up. It is extremely likely that Ivana was either under some sort of pressure to say certain things, due to Trump’s wealth, power, and position of running for president. It is also extremely likely that Ivana herself, who expressed the desire not to label her experience as “rape in the legal sense,” just doesn’t want to have to go through all that shit again.
Two, “trusting women” as you claim to want to do in this situation does not help when the same woman makes seemingly opposite claims about the same situation. Saying you believe her most recent statement necessarily means you disbelieve her original testemony. The situation is not as simple as you’re trying to make it look with your ridiculous “well I just think we should trust women, isn’t that something you all like to do? Trust women?”
There’s a very clear narrative, that makes no surprises and does not accuse anyone of really lying, and that’s one where Ivana’s original testemony is true. For all your repititions of “trust women,” your conclusion is that she lied.
Welp. Tilikum’s history just adds to the strength of my previous “asshole” comment.
Tillicum, what gives — slow day on The Irrational Male?
You are full of shit. Your credibility on anything concerning women is exactly zero. Go mentally masturbate in places where your kind is welcome. This is not one of them.
@Tilikum: and if she says the Trumpery raped her, she could lose most or all of that.
TIlikum is a fucking asshole and watching someone play the new Life is Strange episode is dehydrating me. I can only deal with one or the other.
Also Tilikum is an asshole so shut up, Tilikum.
@Tilli
Yeah, you trust women so much you don’t do business with them and discriminate against them as much as possible. I’ll just as soon be untrustworthy, thanks.
Sorry for not responding sooner, kirbywarp. Cohen is Trumps lawyer. Lewandowski is his campaign manager. That’s who made the comments I quoted previously. Lewandowski is trying to spin this as though Cohen has nothing to do with the campaign. Hence my comment about throwing him under the bus. “Who, THAT guy? He has nothing to do with US.”
I was actually having a conversation. Weird.
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
“vicious ad hominem attacks”
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
“the office was created ad hominem for Fenton”
It’s not an ad hominem if you’re an actual asshole, asshole, especially when you were already pulling an argument out of your ass in the first place.
@Grumpy (et al.):
We don’t know the details of the Trumps’ divorce settlement and Ivana’s gag order with regard to their marriage. It is entirely possible that it included a possibility of cutting off her custody / contact with her children and who knows what other threats.
We know enough of The Donald to believe that as a husband he indeed was treating her in ‘a cruel and inhumane way,’ as her divorce petition stated. (So redpillian. Tilicum & Co. should approve.)
It is clear that this primitive conscience-deficient egomaniac is capable of anything to get his way, so it should not surprise anyone that Ivana would try to protect herself (and her family) by guarding the truth.
Get lost, Tillicum. “Conversation,” lol. You don’t know the meaning of the word.
It’s so sad that Trollicum can post the definition of ad hominem and still not understand what it is. Calling someone an asshole isn’t an ad hominem. Saying someone’s argument is wrong because they’re an asshole is. Trollikum didn’t even make an argument in the first place, so posting the definition of a logical fallacy doesn’t really accomplish anything.
It’s so cute when the misogynists think they can undermine feminist logic by speaking in strawfeminist cliches.
@ Aunt Edna
It might just be as simple as the fact that women get such a battering when they stick their head above the parapet in situations like this that they are just forced to withdraw from the fray for their own well being.
I’ve seen this in my own experience and also with people like Roman Polanski’s victim; Julian Assange’s etc.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Ivana just doesn’t want all the media intrusion raking up the coals again and then the wrath she’ll get either from people pressing for lurid details or haranguing her for ‘making things up’, ‘disgruntled ex wife’ etc.
@ Alan
Yeah, dear god, it’s awful enough for anyone alleging rape, but to go up against Trump? Fuck that. I hate to say it, but I don’t know if I would have the wherewithal to withstand the media and Trump onslaught.
Also, keep in mind that they have kids. She might want to keep the allegation in the past for their sake.
@WWTH:
Trollicum proved he can cut and paste, which exhausted his mental capacity.
@Alan:
Yes. I’m sure the last thing she wants right now is to revisit the shameful and painful personal details of the abuse she suffered from Trump.
One of the rules that’s served me well in Internet discourse: In non-semantic arguments, the party that links a dictionary definition has lost the argument. I actually tolerate Godwins more than the “appeal to dictionary” nonsense.
“Oh shit, they caught me out. DEPLOY THE DICTIONARY!!!11one”
You want to hear an ad hominem, asswipe?
You’re a fucknuggetty doucheweasel of a crusty wankstain with the intelligence of an infected haemorrhoid and the trolling ability of my cat. You are a mountain of asses. A gaping, angry colon that Goatse himself would be disturbed by. Take your dictionary and your rape apologia and shove them sideways, you morally-bankrupt shitmonger, then run on home to Daddy Fartiste along the Yellow Lego Road. I suppose that last one’s not really an insult; you should feel right at home with the Straw Feminist and the Cowardly Lyin’.
=)
Feels good to break out the swearing again after the new comment policy.
@ Aunt Edna
I don’t see anything ‘shameful’ (not having a dig there; I know what you mean); the only person who should feel shame is the perpetrator; not that he will.
@Alan:
You’re right, in the ideal world there would be no shame associated with being victimized. But in the real one, such revelations are always associated with victim-shaming.
Her past and present would be scrutinized in order to find reasons and ways of how she brought this on herself, etc. IOW, the standard patriarchal approach to female victims of rape and abuse. This would be especially energetic given who she was married to.
I’m sure that as a mother and grandmother she’d like to avoid such public circus for the sake of her kids, if not just her own.
@SFHC:
LOL!
I’m not fond of swearing — or so I thought… 😉
@SFHC
(I know it’s not necessarily a mic drop moment, but, damn.)
@ SFHC
Top swearing; that was almost poetic. You’d give Malcolm Tucker a run for his money.
@ Scented Fucking Hard Chairs,
Thanks for quoting Tilikum and revealing that he’s nothing but a straight up racist/bigot. It really puts his comments into perspective. Funny, how he doesn’t try to deny that he made the racist comment you attributed to him. Good to know.
Interesting. I’ll check off Pathos and Logos, but I need to work on Ethos with this crowd.
Well, its good to see we don’t disagree on substance, merely style. That’s easy enough.
Thanks folks.
More of classic Trollicum:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/23/vulnerability/comment-page-2/#comment-70214
And that’s not even the worst one.
You can see how he’d come here to have a “conversation” and tell us that he’d “trust women,” lol.
Asshole. To put it kindly.
@Tikilik
You’re relying on the advice of a bloke who thought flies have four legs and men have more teeth than women?