Why new child rape case should cost Donald Trump the election

[Doodley]

The Huffington Post reports that the reporters that turned a blind eye to Cosby’s victims have publicly apologized to the women. They felt horrible that if only they would have written and given them a space in the magazine/newspaper, not as many women would have been hurt by his actions. It looks like history could repeat itself as some of the same claims are being made again, only this time it is about Presidential hopeful Donald Trump.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3367307/why-the-new-child-rape-case-against-gop-nominee-donald-trump-should-cost-him-the-2016-election/

[TexasProgresive]

1. Could be.

The threats to harm her and her family are classic if true.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. This story has been hanging around for months,

Media is so afraid to challenge Trump,and that was very evident over the week end.

[politicaljunkie41910]

3. We don't need this kind of stuff. Hillary is going to win without these

questionable decades old charges. Look I don't like trump passionately, but epthe last thing we need is some salacious scandal to muddy the waters. As for the press saying they should have took the Cosby claims more serious, sooner. These woman did not come forward and report it when it happened. Only later did they come forward, and the majority only came forward decades later. This is much different from child rape or child molestation, so lets not confuse the two. Had ONE person come forward when it actually happened and reported it to the police, immediately, when they could have taken swabs for evidence, this would have stopped at victim No. 1. Even if there was not enough evidence of a crime to move foreward on, it would have established a pattern of conduct, should he have been stupid enough to try this with a Victim No. 2.

The last thing we want as a nation is for people to start coming forward decades later saying politicians raped them when they were a child many decades later. Not that it isn't possible, but no one should have to prove a negative decades later. Politics is ugly now. We see how much the Clintons have been accused of. How difficult would it be for some RW nut job to smear a candidate decades later, and how would one defend against such an accusation.

[renie408]

4. Yeah, I thought we should just ignore all those choirboys. WHAT THE FUCK??

Are you kidding?? If this is a thing and it might be a thing, it needs to be checked out.

[politicaljunkie41910]

6. Be careful what you wish for. Donald Trump hasn't been in hiding for the past 22 or more years.

Don't make me have to defend Trump. I don't like him one bit, but but there is a reason why there is a Statute of Limitations on criminal actions, and Trump no matter how vile we might think he is, none of us should want to see this sort of thing become a precedent. Donald Trump has lived in the same place for the past 20 something years, and he's been at least a millionnaire or billionnaire, for that same period of time or better. And the woman making these charges has been an adult woman for the majority of the past 22 years. If we start allowing people to destroy political candidates lives with rape accusations, decades after the alledged offense, than it will mean every man out there, every politician is fair game. Next time it will be someone else. Can't beat him in the polls, play the rape card. Introduce some doubt about his character into the election process. You'll raise enough doubt that someone will believe it. Just the allegation would be enough to derail a candidate in the midst of a highly contested campaign.

As to your claim about those choirboys, I assume you mean 'altar boys'. That was a very sad chapter within the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean that we should throw our legal system out the window.

[renie408]

7. So, let me get this straight...

Priests....OK to come after years after the offense.

Actors....OK to come after years after the offense.

Politicians....off limits, particularly if they are wealthy.

Just want to make sure I get my liberal Outrage-O-Meter calibrated correctly.

[politicaljunkie41910]

8. You can be as outraged as you care to be. I just don't want to see a precident started which will

take hold if it's allowed to happen. Next time it will be someone else. There a saying that a lie can make it around the world and back before the truth can get its pants on. The STORY always seems to make the front page, while the retraction get hidden on the back page.

[renie408]

9. A) It is "precedent" and B) You have assumed it is a lie.

I think that's the problem I am having. You assume that this is a lie. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. If it happened and she was a child when it did, perhaps she didn't feel comfortable coming forward against a massively wealthy older man at the time. Given that this is the THIRD rape allegation against him (the other two were retracted...which should make you happy), I am thinking it should not be dismissed out of hand because he is a fucking politician.

[Doodley]

10. I'm with you there. There are too many cases. Look at Jimmy Saville in the UK. One of the most

prolific child abusers in Britain, dating back decades. It was all ignored until after he died, because he was famous, because he was part of the establishment. That isn't good enough.

[kimbutgar]

5. No they are too busy bringing up Bill Clinton's philandering past

And ignore Cheeto the rapist.

Our MSM sucks.