Trump accused of raping his wife in the 90s

[General Zod]

Should there be a mega-thread for all of the Trump craziness?

When asked about Mike Huckabee making a Holocaust reference regarding the Iran deal, President Obama quipped, "Maybe this is just an effort to push Mr. Trump out of the headlines." But rest assured that no one out-Trumps Team Trump. On Monday night, the Daily Beast published a report on Ivana Trump's claim in her divorce deposition that Donald Trump raped her in 1989. The accusation was revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon, The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, and at the time of publication Ivana said she "felt violated" during the incident, but did not intend to accuse her ex-husband of rape in a "literal or criminal sense."

Donald Trump denied the allegation years ago, so how did the billionaire's attorney decide to defend his boss? By falsely claiming that marital rape is legal and threatening the journalists behind the story. Per the Daily Beast:

Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”
“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”
Raping your spouse has been outlawed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia since 1993, though in a handful of states marital rape is still treated differently than rape outside of marriage. In New York, where the alleged incident occurred, marital rape has been a crime since 1984.

In Lost Tycoon, author Harry Hurt III relays the scene Ivana described in her deposition, which allegedly occurred after Donald went to his wife's plastic surgeon for scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot. He reportedly told his wife, "Your fucking doctor has ruined me!" The Daily Beast continues:

What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her own scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his own pants.
“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”
Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.
“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.
In 1993, Donald said the story is "obviously false" and denied getting the surgery. As part of their 1991 divorce settlement, Ivana is not allowed to discuss their marriage without her ex-husband's permission. A statement from Ivana provided by the Trump team appears on the first page of Lost Tycoon:

During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me ... [O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As 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.
Cohen accused the Daily Beast of misconstruing Ivana's remarks, saying she was describing that "she felt raped emotionally," not literally. He added, "There is nothing reasonable about you wanting to write a story about somebody’s usage of the word 'rape,' when she’s talking [about how] she didn’t feel emotionally satisfied."

According to the Daily Beast's Tim Mak and Brandy Zadrozny, Cohen then threatened to serve the site with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit, just like Univision, and promised to ruin them personally:

“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 judgements against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.
The journalists say Cohen also told them they would "suffer the consequences" and asked, "You want to ruin your life at the age of 20?"

Trump appeared on Hannity shortly after the story broke, and while many wondered if Trump would address his campaign's latest outrageous claim, it appears the interview was pretaped.

But the message is clear: The candidate will supply his own offensive remarks, thank you very much.

Update: A Trump spokesperson told Business Insider: "This is an event that has been widely reported on in the past, it is old news and it never happened ... It is a standard lawyer technique, which was used to exploit more money from Mr. Trump especially since he had an ironclad prenuptial agreement."

It's all on the table when you're running for President, and considering the allegations of Obama hiring a gay prostitute during both of his runs I think turnabout is fair play.

[Gaidin]

Apparently Trump's lawyer is able to go "legally no" because timeframe reasons. As if that helps already crazy PR imagery.

[blowfish]

Since Republicans are the party of "not a legitimate rape", I'm not holding my breath on this affecting his image.

[General Zod]

Since Republicans are the party of "not a legitimate rape", I'm not holding my breath on this affecting his image.

It probably won't have any impact on the primary but if he manages to somehow win the nomination you better believe it will be a good sore spot for the Democratic candidate.

[Titan Uranus]

Apparently Trump's lawyer is able to go "legally no" because timeframe reasons. As if that helps already crazy PR imagery.

No, marital rape in New York, where this took place, was outlawed 5 years prior.

[The Romulan Republic]

I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but is the idea of Trump being a rapist particularly surprising? He is an arrogant bully and an utter piece of shit, and if his lawyer's comments are representative of the views of his client...

Sadly, this may actually help him with the Republican base. The really die-hard misogynists will see him as one of their own, and the others will probably see this as a Left-wing media/feminist conspiracy to discredit him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apparently Trump's lawyer is able to go "legally no" because timeframe reasons. As if that helps already crazy PR imagery.

According to the article in the OP, marital rape was illegal in the state in question (New York) at the time.

[Zaune]

Oh, it just gets better and better. I won't quote the whole thing because the formatting won't transfer to BBCode well, but the short version is, Trump's lawyer outright threatened two reporters with a libel lawsuit if they even ran a story on this topic.

And you'd think a guy as wealthy as Trump could find a lawyer who graduated from somewhere less of a joke than the Thomas Cooley Law School.

[Patroklos]

I am not sure why the lawyer weighed in, Ivanna's statement in 1993 pretty much lays the original article's source for making an accusation low. That's all they should have referenced.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In general, this lawyer seems wildly incompetent. Every time I have seen him make a TV appearance (which has been almost daily for the past two weeks or so), he seems completely overmatched. He idiotically threatened journalists with libel suits (to the point that Trump specifically had to make a statement repudiating him). The entire Univision lawsuit is apparently a complete and utter farce.

[Joun_Lord]

Sadly, this may actually help him with the Republican base. The really die-hard misogynists will see him as one of their own, and the others will probably see this as a Left-wing media/feminist conspiracy to discredit him.

It will probably help him with the hard core religious folks who believe that a wife can't be raped. Their is apparently a whole subset of Christians and probably other religions who believe wives are owned by their husbands, husband means master, and wives should be submissive. Husbands can't rape their wives because they own them as described in this common proverb, "you don’t pay for the milk when you own the cow".

Donny probably holds a similar view but not because he is a christian but because he is a rich bitch narcissist. He probably thinks because he has the money, he pays for his wives things, then he owns her.

[cmdrjones]

Sadly, this may actually help him with the Republican base. The really die-hard misogynists will see him as one of their own, and the others will probably see this as a Left-wing media/feminist conspiracy to discredit him.

It will probably help him with the hard core religious folks who believe that a wife can't be raped. Their is apparently a whole subset of Christians and probably other religions who believe wives are owned by their husbands, husband means master, and wives should be submissive. Husbands can't rape their wives because they own them as described in this common proverb, "you don’t pay for the milk when you own the cow".

Donny probably holds a similar view but not because he is a christian but because he is a rich bitch narcissist. He probably thinks because he has the money, he pays for his wives things, then he owns her.

This is a false description of a very real religious stance. It basically boils down to: Consent is given during the marriage ceremony and is removed by a divorce.

This has the backing of, oh, only about 1000 years of common law. That being said, we HAVE made marital rape a crime in the US since 1984, 9as the article pointed out).

Now, the problems arise (law of unintended consequences): Once the marriage contract requires no obligations of the wife in the marriage bed (or those that are only enforceable at her pleasure which amounts to the same thing) we get the situation we have today with all three waves of feminism, collapsing marriage rates and then the reactions... red pill... MRA's etc etc and all that jazz...

With this situation specifically, we can also call out Mr Trump for his miserable failures as a husband (I don't see pulling your wifes hair out, insulting, accosting, and roughing her up as "loving her as Christ loves the Church" which under Christian standards he is COMMANDED to do.

I don't think for a moment that Trump IS a commited Christian, but Joun_lord brought up his wierd 'version' of what Christianity thinks of how marriage is supposed to work, and I can assure you that mr Trump is NOT acting anything like what a Christian husband is called to do.

Now for the last part of his quote, that is entirely accurate (IMHO) because Trump probably DOES believe that way, but it is only similar to the Christian tradition if you remove every standard of behavior and Christian thought process from the husbands side of the arrangement, which seems a rather strange thing to do, unless your building a strawman the size of the Trump tower.

[Thanas]

Blaming "not being allowed to rape" the wife for collapsing rates of marriage and misogyny is a bit of a stretch, dearie.

[Joun_Lord]

This is a false description of a very real religious stance. It basically boils down to: Consent is given during the marriage ceremony and is removed by a divorce.

This has the backing of, oh, only about 1000 years of common law. That being said, we HAVE made marital rape a crime in the US since 1984, 9as the article pointed out).

Now, the problems arise (law of unintended consequences): Once the marriage contract requires no obligations of the wife in the marriage bed (or those that are only enforceable at her pleasure which amounts to the same thing) we get the situation we have today with all three waves of feminism, collapsing marriage rates and then the reactions... red pill... MRA's etc etc and all that jazz...

With this situation specifically, we can also call out Mr Trump for his miserable failures as a husband (I don't see pulling your wifes hair out, insulting, accosting, and roughing her up as "loving her as Christ loves the Church" which under Christian standards he is COMMANDED to do.

I don't think for a moment that Trump IS a commited Christian, but Joun_lord brought up his wierd 'version' of what Christianity thinks of how marriage is supposed to work, and I can assure you that mr Trump is NOT acting anything like what a Christian husband is called to do.

Now for the last part of his quote, that is entirely accurate (IMHO) because Trump probably DOES believe that way, but it is only similar to the Christian tradition if you remove every standard of behavior and Christian thought process from the husbands side of the arrangement, which seems a rather strange thing to do, unless your building a strawman the size of the Trump tower.

Your description doesn't make it sound any better then mine, it still sounds a metric shitton like rape. And it doesn't matter whether it has a 1000 years of common law, its still pretty fucked up. We had thousands of years of child brides and slavery and other fun things that was backed by "common law", the bible, or human nature, shit be still fucked up yo.

I don't even know what the ever loving monkey fuck you are going with that "because husbands don't have control of their wives pussies we get divorces and feminism". Divorces ain't a bad thing and neither is feminism (feminism about equality, not the amazon feminista womyn liberation men suck fuck you type of feminism but despite what the internet might say I'm relatively positive that sort barely exists) especially when dudes are trying to control a woman's body or thinks he's entitled to her body because they are married. If my wife thought she was entitled to my dick I'd probably divorce her ass too, I ain't a piece of meat, I got rights. Thats if I had a wife. So lonely........

And I don't think Trump is a committed Christian. I however do think Trump shares a similar misogynistic view of marriage that SOME Christians, Muslims, and probably others (Sith maybe? I can't see them as caring too much for womens rights). For such people there is no standard of behavior beyond really fucked up biblically backed behavior that amounts to rape.

Rape is rape. It doesn't matter whether you are drunk, married, male (unless you are in the US then it might be considered sexual assault), female, old, young, Christian, Atheist, what the fuck ever. RAPE IS RAPE. If the persons says no, if the person doesn't consent, its rape. Getting married IS NOT CONSENT. Having surprise sex with your wife while she is asleep, drugged, or just not wanting it IS STILL RAPE.

For fucks sake man, I'm no feminist or politically correct or the most sensitive guy but even I, dense and brutish as I may be, knows having sex with someone without their permission is goddamn rape.

http://jezebel.com/a-brief-overview-of- ... 1720562022

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... efuse-sex/

http://www.gotquestions.org/spousal-rape.html

[cmdrjones]

Your description doesn't make it sound any better then mine, it still sounds a metric shitton like rape. And it doesn't matter whether it has a 1000 years of common law, its still pretty fucked up. We had thousands of years of child brides and slavery and other fun things that was backed by "common law", the bible, or human nature, shit be still fucked up yo.

I don't even know what the ever loving monkey fuck you are going with that "because husbands don't have control of their wives pussies we get divorces and feminism". Divorces ain't a bad thing and neither is feminism (feminism about equality, not the amazon feminista womyn liberation men suck fuck you type of feminism but despite what the internet might say I'm relatively positive that sort barely exists) especially when dudes are trying to control a woman's body or thinks he's entitled to her body because they are married. If my wife thought she was entitled to my dick I'd probably divorce her ass too, I ain't a piece of meat, I got rights. Thats if I had a wife. So lonely........

And I don't think Trump is a committed Christian. I however do think Trump shares a similar misogynistic view of marriage that SOME Christians, Muslims, and probably others (Sith maybe? I can't see them as caring too much for womens rights). For such people there is no standard of behavior beyond really fucked up biblically backed behavior that amounts to rape.

Rape is rape. It doesn't matter whether you are drunk, married, male (unless you are in the US then it might be considered sexual assault), female, old, young, Christian, Atheist, what the fuck ever. RAPE IS RAPE. If the persons says no, if the person doesn't consent, its rape. Getting married IS NOT CONSENT. Having surprise sex with your wife while she is asleep, drugged, or just not wanting it IS STILL RAPE.

For fucks sake man, I'm no feminist or politically correct or the most sensitive guy but even I, dense and brutish as I may be, knows having sex with someone without their permission is goddamn rape.

http://jezebel.com/a-brief-overview-of- ... 1720562022

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... efuse-sex/

http://www.gotquestions.org/spousal-rape.html

#1 that it is, in your opinion, "fucked up yo" doesn't change that it was that way, or the rationale behind it. Remember, there was no genetic testing then and men had to be given SOMETHING in return for their excess labor. Women offered EXCLUSIVE sexual access (at least in theory) and legitimate children and their huswifery in exchange for his labor and protection.

Remember also, this was the norm across virtually all 'civilized' societies. Look up the mating laws of the Zulu and the look remarkably like the Early Romans.

#2 Where did I get that from? Well, that's best answere by asking a simple question: What does modern marriage offer men that single men can't get?
Think hard... it may take a while to come up with a list.

#3 Divorces ain't a bad thing? To each his own I suppose, but some of us LIKE having a stable society with legitimate children and intact families. Do you think areas of the US (for example) without these things could survive without massive transfer payments from other sectors of society? (I'm looking at YOU too appalachia!)

#4 as far as "trying to control a womans body" goes... that kinda goes along with the whole "marriage" concept (well, the traditional christian view anyways, not so much anymore) so it's not like this idea came out of nowhere. if and when you Do get married, you may want to ask the wifey if she plans to exercise control of your sexuality (that it no sidepieces or farming her out to your bros, or you hiring hookers on the DL or whatever). If that bothers you I suggest NOT marrying rather than trying to redefine what marriage IS.... simpler that way.

#5 I agree that Trump is probably not a christian, (or if he is, he;s really bad at it) but as far as biblical principles being equated with rape, you DO realize that one of the 1st things the priest asks is if both parties are there of their own free will, right?

#6 What you said here is LEGALLY true.... NOW. My point is that it WASN'T true in the past and also, the change from one state of affairs to the other has lots of unintended consequences that haven't been fully realized such as, young men asking themselves: Well, if i have no exclusive sexual access to my wife, and she can leave me and take half my stuff at any time, and I can get sex from any girl who is willing to NOT charge me with regret rape later on.... AND if I am cool enough I can do this to a half dozen women at ONCE... why the fuck would I ever get married?

[Batman]

This is going to be interesting.

[Thanas]

#1 that it is, in your opinion, "fucked up yo" doesn't change that it was that way, or the rationale behind it. Remember, there was no genetic testing then and men had to be given SOMETHING in return for their excess labor. Women offered EXCLUSIVE sexual access (at least in theory) and legitimate children and their huswifery in exchange for his labor and protection.

Your view is wrong. Think long and hard about something called division of labor.

Remember also, this was the norm across virtually all 'civilized' societies. Look up the mating laws of the Zulu and the look remarkably like the Early Romans.

.....

Please state the mating laws of the Romans and the Zulus.

#2 Where did I get that from? Well, that's best answere by asking a simple question: What does modern marriage offer men that single men can't get?
Think hard... it may take a while to come up with a list.

I don't know, how about life-long companionship, division of labor, shared resources, free healthcare, tax benefits, consensual sex....

#3 Divorces ain't a bad thing? To each his own I suppose, but some of us LIKE having a stable society with legitimate children and intact families. Do you think areas of the US (for example) without these things could survive without massive transfer payments from other sectors of society? (I'm looking at YOU too appalachia!)

Go fuck yourself if you think divorce is a bad thing.

#4 as far as "trying to control a womans body" goes... that kinda goes along with the whole "marriage" concept (well, the traditional christian view anyways, not so much anymore) so it's not like this idea came out of nowhere. If and when you Do get married, you may want to ask the wifey if she plans to exercise control of your sexuality (that it no sidepieces or farming her out to your bros, or you hiring hookers on the DL or whatever). If that bothers you I suggest NOT marrying rather than trying to redefine what marriage IS.... simpler that way.

No, it does not. There have been tons of concepts in pre-modern times that did not define marriage as gaining control over a women's body or sexual exclusivity.

Your views on history are lacking even the basic knowledge about social concepts. Do not pull this crap again.

Well, if i have no exclusive sexual access to my wife, and she can leave me and take half my stuff at any time, and I can get sex from any girl who is willing to NOT charge me with regret rape later on.... AND if I am cool enough I can do this to a half dozen women at ONCE... why the fuck would I ever get married?

Holy MRA dogwhistle, batman.

[Jub]

This is starting to sound a lot like that pedophilia thread from a while back that got some folks banned... Cmdrjones, you might want to concede and let this one sleep.

[General Zod]

This is starting to sound a lot like that pedophilia thread from a while back that got some folks banned... Cmdrjones, you might want to concede and let this one sleep.

No no, I insist he continue.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Just to save time: Jones, do you think it's worse for spousal rape to be legal, or for a small increase in divorce because controlling hatfuckers can't rape their wives without going to prison? If you're opposed to spousal rape enough to be willing to see an increase in divorce, why the fuck do you bring it up?

Not that I'm entirely convinced you actually believe the shit you spew. By this point I've concluded you're a troll that gets his jollies by pretending to be every horrible conservative stereotype there is.

Regarding divorce: It can get ugly as hell, it can cause a lot of misery... But not having it would be worse. Believe me, I've seen what happens when a woman effectively has no recourse against a shitty husband. My aunt is married to one of Warren Jeff's brothers. You know, the polygamist dude that's in prison. In that fucked up cult, women are property and have no realistic response to it all. I can give you plenty of details of why, but it boils down to women being treated as property and not having a social support net because the cults gather in one place so the entire local government is more corrupt than fucking Chicago.

Not having divorce would be worse than it existing and occasionally being misused.

[Joun_Lord]

#1 that it is, in your opinion, "fucked up yo" doesn't change that it was that way, or the rationale behind it. Remember, there was no genetic testing then and men had to be given SOMETHING in return for their excess labor. Women offered EXCLUSIVE sexual access (at least in theory) and legitimate children and their huswifery in exchange for his labor and protection.

Men were given the possibility of passing along their genetic stuff and maybe getting laid and help in child rearing. From what I understand of it marriage came from pair bonding in raising kids, not for slapping the salami or domination of partners.

And even if that was a legitimate thing thousands of years ago before Sigourney Weaver its not as legitimate now when when their are alternatives for sex, child rearing, child making, protection, obtaining of fire, and all the other things that made dumb cavemen of the past raping their partners at all kosher.

Remember also, this was the norm across virtually all 'civilized' societies. Look up the mating laws of the Zulu and the look remarkably like the Early Romans.

And know what was also the norm? Slavery, genocide, non-marital rape, and spears (well pilum for the Romans). Doesn't really have much to do with our modern societies

#2 Where did I get that from? Well, that's best answere by asking a simple question: What does modern marriage offer men that single men can't get?
Think hard... it may take a while to come up with a list.

Being recognized as being with the person you love all legal like, raising kids, tax breaks, bling on your fingers, a crapload of toasters and blenders as gifts, and someone to help out with your estate when you kick the bucket.

#3 Divorces ain't a bad thing? To each his own I suppose, but some of us LIKE having a stable society with legitimate children and intact families. Do you think areas of the US (for example) without these things could survive without massive transfer payments from other sectors of society? (I'm looking at YOU too appalachia!)

Having legitimate children and intact families is indeed a good thing. But not good enough to force people to stay in toxic and sometimes quite deadly relationships. Sometimes marriage is a mistake and divorce helps correct that mistake.

#4 as far as "trying to control a womans body" goes... that kinda goes along with the whole "marriage" concept (well, the traditional christian view anyways, not so much anymore) so it's not like this idea came out of nowhere. If and when you Do get married, you may want to ask the wifey if she plans to exercise control of your sexuality (that it no sidepieces or farming her out to your bros, or you hiring hookers on the DL or whatever). If that bothers you I suggest NOT marrying rather than trying to redefine what marriage IS.... simpler that way.

If that is the "traditional Christian" definition of marriage then its no freaking wonderbread people have such a problem with it. Marriage ain't about controlling a womans body. At best the concept of marriage is about child rearing. Sometimes that doesn't even involve sex nor is a it always an exclusive thing.

Well, if i have no exclusive sexual access to my wife, and she can leave me and take half my stuff at any time, and I can get sex from any girl who is willing to NOT charge me with regret rape later on.... AND if I am cool enough I can do this to a half dozen women at ONCE... why the fuck would I ever get married?

Why indeed? I mean whats the point if you can't treat your wife like a slave, for her to stay with you and force her to ride your one inch wonder wang (your centimeter peter for you euro types with your pig dog metric system, IMPERIAL FOR LYFE!!!).

Seriously?

[Batman]

You Yanks just hate metric because you know that a) it's massively more sensible and b) there's no way you can afford to actually convert to it.

[Joun_Lord]

Nah, Imperial is just superior. The US, Liberia, and Myanmar are just ahead of the curve. One day you lot will realize your mistake and rue the day you switched to the bastard metric and come crying back to Imperial. PREPARE FOR YOUR RUEING!!!!

[Batman]

What's this 'switched back' nonsense? We never 'were' on imperial.

And maybe we should get back on topic (or at least be split to a separate thread if we want to keep imperial vs metric up).

[Flagg]

I don't give a damn about Trump, he thinks he's hot shit in a champagne glass when he's cold diarrhea in a Dixie Cup.

It's his attorney who must have just come out of a 60 year coma to say there is no such thing as spousal rape. Here's an idea, let's have a shotgun wedding between him and a nice strong lady with a collection of 18" strap-ons and see how he feels after the honeymoon when he never takes a normal shit again. If only dreams could come true...

What's going to be even better is when the monied establishment finally kicks Dump to the curb and whether the stupid Mussolini looking cunt-grub decides to burn through his entire "fortune" on a third party run.