Trump is the party taking the action on his own civil lawsuits. The acting party is the one seeking a resolution. Trumps lawyers may be able to quit the lawsuit during the proceedings. It is not against him. He is suing them (the media and perhaps later the people).
Rump to sue media for giving voice to women
- Thread starter Pogo
- Start date
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
No, that would be Liberalism.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,688
- 43,995
- 2,605
No. The Rapist was impeached by the House of Reps.
Which presidents got impeached?
Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
SO ACCORDING TO NATS LOGIC (the Senate......and their final decision (verdict of the trial) found Clinton innocent.......unethical, perhaps, in the view of many, but NOT culpable.) THE VERY SAME "INNOCENT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY" IDEA ALSO APPLIES TO TRUMP. tHIS WILL start as a civil defamation lawsuit pursued by Trump. The Impeachment process of Bill Clinton was more criminal. The action being taken by Trump is a civil lawsuit to do damage control for his reputation. So far there is only one shabby questionable criminal or civil claim with a hearing in December regarding a Jane Doe type mystery person. The women in the news have not made any legal claims against Trump, only gossip. There are also statutes of limitations which limit how long a person can wait to make a claim against another. There is no criminal or civil case against Trump regarding the bus tape as Mr. Trump was fully protected by freedom of speech in that instance and the lady he spoke of has refused to bring any allegations. SO TRUMP IS INNOCENT. as of now.
In New York, there is no extended statute of limitations for sexual abuse; however, if the abuse is treated as an intentional tort, New York's SOL is one year. N.Y. Civil Prac. Law §
Under the New York Penal Code you have committed persistent sexual abuse if you commit a specified sex crime and within the previous 10 years were convicted of one the specified crimes 2 or more times.
Under the New York Penal Code you have committed persistent sexual abuse if you commit a specified sex crime and within the previous 10 years were convicted of one the specified crimes 2 or more times.
Last edited:
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,975
- 1,870
- Banned
- #189
NONE of these women's allegations against Trump would ever go to an actual trial....ever.
In instances of sexual abuse allegations each side would have to prove..actually PROVE....that each has been negatively impacted by the instance.....These women can't AND Trump ALSO can't prove they're baseless....and that is why no lawsuit would ever arise proving either side is involved in "falsehoods."
Statute of Limitations
If you’ve been the victim of sexual harassment, you might be hesitant to raise the issue at work or pursue a legal claim. Speaking up against your harasser can be intimidating and, even though retaliation is illegal, you might have legitimate concerns about facing reprisals from your employer. There are very good reasons for speaking up, though, not the least of which is to put an end to illegal harassment. From a legal standpoint, you should also be aware that you only have a certain amount of time to raise your sexual harassment claim. If you wait too long, it may be too late to file a legal claim.
Filing Claims with Federal and State Administrative Agencies
Sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination and is prohibited under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the New York State Human Rights Law. New York City has also adopted its own law prohibiting sexual harassment. Each of these laws is enforced by a designated government agency: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for the federal law, the New York State Division of Human Rights for New York state law, and the New York City Commission on Human Rights for New York City’s law.
EEOC Claims
Sexual harassment victims can pursue a Title VII claim by filing a “Charge of Discrimination” with the EEOC. Where, as in New York, there is a state or local administrative agency that enforces a similar state or local law, sexual harassment charges must generally be filed with the EEOC within 300 calendar days of the date the harassment occurred. The 300 days is calculated including weekends and holidays, though the final day of the time period is pushed to the closest business day if it would otherwise fall on a weekend or holiday. The EEOC also notes that they generally will not extend this deadline while you attempt to resolve your complaint through your employer’s internal grievance process. So, even if your employer is already investigating your complaint, it is still very important that you reach out to an attorney to consider your potential EEOC charge because the statute of limitations may already be running.
New York State and New York City Administrative Claims
The New York State Division of Human Rights and New York City Commission on Human Rights have slightly longer deadlines for submitting sexual harassment claims under the laws they help enforce. You have a full year from the date of the event of harassment to file a complaint with either of these agencies.
Filing Claims in Court
Victims of sexual harassment can also pursue their claims in federal or state court, where another set of deadlines applies depending on whether you’re pursuing your claim under federal or state law.
Federal Cases
In order to bring a lawsuit for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you must first file a charge with the EEOC. Assuming you met the deadline requirement for filing an EEOC charge we discussed above, the EEOC will investigate your claim, attempt to mediate a resolution in some instances, and typically issue you a “Notice of Right to Sue” after completing its process. If you want to go forward with a lawsuit at that point, you must file it within 90 days of receiving the Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
New York Cases
Unlike a federal claim, you do not have to first file a complaint with a state or local enforcement agency before filing a lawsuit based on New York law. The statute of limitations for filing a sexual harassment lawsuit under New York State law and New York City law is the same: you have three years from the date of the harassment. This longer window of time can be a benefit to those victims who may have missed the deadline for filing a harassment complaint with one of the administrative enforcement agencies.
If you’ve been the victim of sexual harassment, you might be hesitant to raise the issue at work or pursue a legal claim. Speaking up against your harasser can be intimidating and, even though retaliation is illegal, you might have legitimate concerns about facing reprisals from your employer. There are very good reasons for speaking up, though, not the least of which is to put an end to illegal harassment. From a legal standpoint, you should also be aware that you only have a certain amount of time to raise your sexual harassment claim. If you wait too long, it may be too late to file a legal claim.
Filing Claims with Federal and State Administrative Agencies
Sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination and is prohibited under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the New York State Human Rights Law. New York City has also adopted its own law prohibiting sexual harassment. Each of these laws is enforced by a designated government agency: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for the federal law, the New York State Division of Human Rights for New York state law, and the New York City Commission on Human Rights for New York City’s law.
EEOC Claims
Sexual harassment victims can pursue a Title VII claim by filing a “Charge of Discrimination” with the EEOC. Where, as in New York, there is a state or local administrative agency that enforces a similar state or local law, sexual harassment charges must generally be filed with the EEOC within 300 calendar days of the date the harassment occurred. The 300 days is calculated including weekends and holidays, though the final day of the time period is pushed to the closest business day if it would otherwise fall on a weekend or holiday. The EEOC also notes that they generally will not extend this deadline while you attempt to resolve your complaint through your employer’s internal grievance process. So, even if your employer is already investigating your complaint, it is still very important that you reach out to an attorney to consider your potential EEOC charge because the statute of limitations may already be running.
New York State and New York City Administrative Claims
The New York State Division of Human Rights and New York City Commission on Human Rights have slightly longer deadlines for submitting sexual harassment claims under the laws they help enforce. You have a full year from the date of the event of harassment to file a complaint with either of these agencies.
Filing Claims in Court
Victims of sexual harassment can also pursue their claims in federal or state court, where another set of deadlines applies depending on whether you’re pursuing your claim under federal or state law.
Federal Cases
In order to bring a lawsuit for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you must first file a charge with the EEOC. Assuming you met the deadline requirement for filing an EEOC charge we discussed above, the EEOC will investigate your claim, attempt to mediate a resolution in some instances, and typically issue you a “Notice of Right to Sue” after completing its process. If you want to go forward with a lawsuit at that point, you must file it within 90 days of receiving the Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
New York Cases
Unlike a federal claim, you do not have to first file a complaint with a state or local enforcement agency before filing a lawsuit based on New York law. The statute of limitations for filing a sexual harassment lawsuit under New York State law and New York City law is the same: you have three years from the date of the harassment. This longer window of time can be a benefit to those victims who may have missed the deadline for filing a harassment complaint with one of the administrative enforcement agencies.
Last edited:
Employees in New York City also find the Human Rights Law more favorable than the Federal Civil Rights Act and New York State law because the burden of proof rests on the employer rather than the employee. Whereas a claim under the Federal Civil Rights Act requires the employee to show that the harassment was severe, the New York City Human Rights Law requires the employer to show that the conduct was trivial. That difference may influence workplace policies, for it gives New York City employers greater incentive to prevent or stop discrimination. It also gives employees in a discrimination lawsuit a stronger position during settlement negotiations because it would be less difficult for them to prevail at trial.
Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,360
- 1,830
No, liberalism is where you go before you get fitted for a straight-jacket and sent to a rubber room.
Assault/Battery
1 year from act (Civil); 2 or 5 years depending on the facts (Criminal) N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3) & N.Y. Crim. Proc. § 30.10(2)(b) or (c)
Contract in writing 6 years N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2)
Contract oral or not in writing 6 years N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2)
Emotional distress (intentional) 1 year from act N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3); 14 N.Y.Prac., New York Law of Torts § 1:40
Emotional distress (negligent) 3 years from date of accident 75A N.Y. Jur. 2d Limitations and Laches § 215
Libel/Slander 1 year from act N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3)
1 year from act (Civil); 2 or 5 years depending on the facts (Criminal) N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3) & N.Y. Crim. Proc. § 30.10(2)(b) or (c)
Contract in writing 6 years N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2)
Contract oral or not in writing 6 years N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2)
Emotional distress (intentional) 1 year from act N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3); 14 N.Y.Prac., New York Law of Torts § 1:40
Emotional distress (negligent) 3 years from date of accident 75A N.Y. Jur. 2d Limitations and Laches § 215
Libel/Slander 1 year from act N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3)
The Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 11, 1999.[1] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.
This article is part of a series
about
Bill Clinton
Independent Counsel, Ken Starr, turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. The Chief Prosecutor, David Schippers, and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president. As a result, four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; two passed, making Clinton the second United States President to be impeached after Andrew Johnson, and only the third for whom the House had considered such proceedings (Richard Nixon's presidency is the only one to be ended in the wake of the impeachment process).
The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republicans began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no Democrat voted guilty on either charge. Clinton was acquitted, becoming the second sitting United States President to be formally charged with a crime (impeached) and subsequently declared not guilty (acquitted).
This article is part of a seriesabout
Bill Clinton
Independent Counsel, Ken Starr, turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. The Chief Prosecutor, David Schippers, and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president. As a result, four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; two passed, making Clinton the second United States President to be impeached after Andrew Johnson, and only the third for whom the House had considered such proceedings (Richard Nixon's presidency is the only one to be ended in the wake of the impeachment process).
The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republicans began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no Democrat voted guilty on either charge. Clinton was acquitted, becoming the second sitting United States President to be formally charged with a crime (impeached) and subsequently declared not guilty (acquitted).
- Thread starter
- #196
Two points of correction:
Rump doesn't have a case as he's framed it --- which again, being the entire reason for this thread, is to sue (in reality, threaten to sue, because that's all he's got) the various newspapers for being the vehicle for the accusations (and in the case of the NYT reporter doing her due diligence to get his side of the story just because he's an asshole). But he has no case there whatsoever.
Again -- and this has been explained over and over --- the newspapers did not report that X, Y and Z (etc) assaults happened. The newspapers reported that women A, B, and C (etc) claimed that X, Y and Z happened. And there can be no dispute about that -- they did indeed claim that. It's recorded. That's exactly why the stories are worded the way they are, and always have been.
Now if Rump wanted to bring libel action against the women directly, he'd have a legal basis since that's the actual source of the claims. But that's not where he's aiming. Because his objective is to control any dialogue that is critical of him, and you do that by attacking the device that makes that dialogue possible -- in this case, newspapers.
MOREOVER, the women making the claims are by their descriptions corroborating what he's already bragged about on the bus and in the studio with Howard Stern. When somebody confirms what you've said about yourself, and admitted to saying, you don't have a libel case anyway. Ironically if several women had stepped forward and said "I've known Rump for X number of years and he never laid a hand on me" then Rump might have a case against them for damaging his hard-cultivated reputation AS a sexual predator. Because they'd be contradicting his projections. But in reality that's not what happened --- they've confirmed the bus talk. They're saying he's NOT lying about that.
And in the case of Twohey (the NY Times reporter who called him to get his side), she was simply doing what good journalism does -- get both sides. There's no basis to sue her at all even on Planet Bizzaro.
"Freedom of speech" (First Amendment) refers to what the government can do. Doesn't apply here. Nor does anyone claim what he said was "illegal" so there's nothing to be "innocent" or "guilty" of. And as far as whoever recorded the dialogue, it's impossible to claim to think you were having a private conversation that would never go anywhere, when (a) you're wearing a wireless mic that is powered on, and it's impossible not to know that; and (b) you have a camera crew sitting right next to you shooting your whole conversation. And Rump has a long history of speaking unfiltered not caring who might be observing.
Now he sees the consequences.
Rump doesn't have a case as he's framed it --- which again, being the entire reason for this thread, is to sue (in reality, threaten to sue, because that's all he's got) the various newspapers for being the vehicle for the accusations (and in the case of the NYT reporter doing her due diligence to get his side of the story just because he's an asshole). But he has no case there whatsoever.
Again -- and this has been explained over and over --- the newspapers did not report that X, Y and Z (etc) assaults happened. The newspapers reported that women A, B, and C (etc) claimed that X, Y and Z happened. And there can be no dispute about that -- they did indeed claim that. It's recorded. That's exactly why the stories are worded the way they are, and always have been.
Now if Rump wanted to bring libel action against the women directly, he'd have a legal basis since that's the actual source of the claims. But that's not where he's aiming. Because his objective is to control any dialogue that is critical of him, and you do that by attacking the device that makes that dialogue possible -- in this case, newspapers.
MOREOVER, the women making the claims are by their descriptions corroborating what he's already bragged about on the bus and in the studio with Howard Stern. When somebody confirms what you've said about yourself, and admitted to saying, you don't have a libel case anyway. Ironically if several women had stepped forward and said "I've known Rump for X number of years and he never laid a hand on me" then Rump might have a case against them for damaging his hard-cultivated reputation AS a sexual predator. Because they'd be contradicting his projections. But in reality that's not what happened --- they've confirmed the bus talk. They're saying he's NOT lying about that.
And in the case of Twohey (the NY Times reporter who called him to get his side), she was simply doing what good journalism does -- get both sides. There's no basis to sue her at all even on Planet Bizzaro.
"Freedom of speech" (First Amendment) refers to what the government can do. Doesn't apply here. Nor does anyone claim what he said was "illegal" so there's nothing to be "innocent" or "guilty" of. And as far as whoever recorded the dialogue, it's impossible to claim to think you were having a private conversation that would never go anywhere, when (a) you're wearing a wireless mic that is powered on, and it's impossible not to know that; and (b) you have a camera crew sitting right next to you shooting your whole conversation. And Rump has a long history of speaking unfiltered not caring who might be observing.
Now he sees the consequences.
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,975
- 1,870
- Banned
- #197
Well stated.......and please let me just add this:
Trump HAD to threaten to sue the paper because had he not done so, even his most ardent supporter would have wondered why he wasn't "fighting back"....Bottom line, the threat of a lawsuit against the paper is just grandstanding for the benefit of Trump's base.
- Thread starter
- #198
Agreed, and had he directed his threats against the women directly ---which would be far more valid legally --- he risked his female support dropping from even lower from the tiny-finger figure where it already is (0.008% or whatever it is this week).
I dunno, that's a theory that might have entered into the thinking, even though it goes against Rump's pattern of generally trying to drive his own numbers down to as little as possible with every constituency except old, poorly educated, gullible white males who are susceptible to paranoia and carnival barker rhetoric.
One small point of correction on "Rump had to sue the paper" --- he didn't sue the paper (and he can't). He threatened the paper, and the reporter who called for his comment. Because that's always the objective --- style over substance. A threat made by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
But as far as making that move and the motivation behind it -- it exemplifies his contempt for the principle of the First Amendment, upon which this entire country and its Constitution is based. And which principle he's already directly threatened in the past, as noted in my OP. The fact that he goes after not the accusers, but the vehicle that provides an avenue for them to accuse --- that speaks volumes.
That's the point of this thread. His objective is not to quash his critics one at a time, because that's playing whack-a-mole. His objective is to deny them an avenue to say anything at all.
Last edited:
NO YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO BE A HATER AGAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE STRINGING A BUNCH OF ASSUMPTIONS TOGETHER. tHE BUS TALK IS PROTECTED UNDER FREEDOM OF SPEECH. TRUMPS CASE IS A LAWSUIT THEREFORE HE IS SUING, NOT TRYINg TO.................................................... AND THEN YOUR NEXT STATEMENT IS FALSE: .................................................................................. RE: "MOREOVER, the women making the claims are by their descriptions corroborating what he's already bragged about on the bus and in the studio with Howard Stern."AND " When somebody confirms what you've said about yourself, and admitted to saying, you don't have a libel case anyway."AND " they've confirmed the bus talk" SO LETS BREAK IT DOWN AS YOUR STATEMENTS ARE A STRING OF MISLEADING FALSE STATEMENTS : please realize that SCANDAL is usually put together this way..................Once again: The "Locker Room Talk" on the bus was protected under freedom of speech. It may have been about Nancy O'Dell and she remained friends with Trump after the time they spent together, and the time of his talk. They continued to be friends and there is a picture if her with her arm around him in 2010. The "furniture shopping"- supposed physical encounter was in 2005. Perhaps it was a mutual fling, she rejected him and in his burn he got rude talking privately to the boys on the bus. Maybe he did make some kind of move. Anyways she remained friends with him. Close friends. Regarding the new allegations, none of these women nor anyone on thier behalf ever filed any lawsuits. The satutes of limitations have run out on them. In addition, Trump believes this is a smear campaign. Trump apologized for his rude bus talk. YOU ARE MAKING a bunch of FALSE STATEMENTS ....
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
It Only Takes One Change of Government and It's Lost Forever- Started by Carl in Michigan
- Replies: 0
-
-
VOTE: Should a child born on US soil automatically be a US citizen?- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 8
-
