Trump’s Troubles

Originally Posted by Hugh

However



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65531098

However nothing. It’s still not a criminal conviction which matters.

[ianch99]

Take two:

Have there been many Presidential candidates who have been held legally responsible for a sexual assault? I would have thought a lot of the Religious Right would draw the line at this.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Isn't going to go down well with the ladies though, and they make up quite a proportion of the electorate.

Yawn, this was said prior to 2016 Presidential Election, he still became president, you know when a tape was leaked about grabbing women by their genitalia.

Originally Posted by Mick

However nothing. It’s still not a criminal conviction which matters.

Matters for what though? He could still run even if he was convicted criminally right?

Everything else is just public perception and the people who've stuck with Trump up until now aren't going to be swayed by a jury finding he committed a sexual assault civil or criminal.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

Matters for what though? He could still run even if he was convicted criminally right?

Everything else is just public perception and the people who've stuck with Trump up until now aren't going to be swayed by a jury finding he committed a sexual assault civil or criminal.

Could it not help any Trump rival in the GOP nomination race? They could play on his proven predatory behaviour towards women which must offend some Christians? Unless I am misreading the message of the Gospels ..

Originally Posted by ianch99

Could it not help any Trump rival in the GOP nomination race? They could play on his proven predatory behaviour towards women which must offend some Christians? Unless I am misreading the message of the Gospels ..

Again I think it's already baked in at this point. The people who want Republican policies without all the drama and baggage of Trump have probably already moved to Ron DeSantis. Those who've stayed are dye-in-the-wool loyalists at this point who want Trump more than they want a Republican.

I don't think there can be many people left who, after everything that's happened, have this as the final straw. Maybe in the General Election it's yet another thing in the minus column for Trump though.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

Again I think it's already baked in at this point. The people who want Republican policies without all the drama and baggage of Trump have probably already moved to Ron DeSantis. Those who've stayed are dye-in-the-wool loyalists at this point who want Trump more than they want a Republican.

I don't think there can be many people left who, after everything that's happened, have this as the final straw. Maybe in the General Election it's yet another thing in the minus column for Trump though.

Your take is very depressing. You are in effect saying that what happens in the real world does not affect the voting intent of millions of Americans. Are they that dumb?

Originally Posted by Damien

Matters for what though? He could still run even if he was convicted criminally right?

Everything else is just public perception and the people who've stuck with Trump up until now aren't going to be swayed by a jury finding he committed a sexual assault civil or criminal.

Only saying words matter in the legal sense, many people think he was convicted yesterday, he wasn’t, he can only be held liable in a civil case. The bar for finding someone liable in a civil case is a lot lower than the burden of proof required to secure a criminal conviction and it absolutely, does not count as a criminal record.

Many of his loyalists just see past this as another political hit job. It might knock a few points off his poll numbers, but he’s still way ahead of DeSantis as preferred Republican Nominee.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Take two:

Have there been many Presidential candidates who have been held legally responsible for a sexual assault? I would have thought a lot of the Religious Right would draw the line at this.

No, but Clinton and Biden both should have been.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Yawn, this was said prior to 2016 Presidential Election, he still became president, you know when a tape was leaked about grabbing women by their genitalia.

Exactly this: any person of reasonably average intelligence could reasonably assume he was a sex pest in 2016. This isn’t news.

I actually feel sorry for real victims of sexual assault, because we’ve seen time after time, if it’s a presidential/Supreme Court nominee, the go to strategy for the opposing side, is to invent historical sexual predatory actions.

[jfman]

Is there any evidence that this one was invented or is that just supposition because it’s Trump?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

Exactly this: any person of reasonably average intelligence could reasonably assume he was a sex pest in 2016. This isn’t news.

Yet there are those who, based on their law & order perspective, would not penalise someone for what others say i.e. innocent until proven guilty. They would, however, be more swayed when the US legal system finds someone guilty of an actual offence. I do think this will have an impact but not a major one.

BREAKING: Special counsel John Durham finds the FBI should not have launched an investigation into former U.S President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election - CNN

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Most people I know don't feel it's a witch hunt.

Comment made today to me, it's New York what do expect