Donald Trump on his 11 groping-accusers: ‘All of these liars will be sued’

FFN_TRump_Speech_CHP_062216_52100908

In the past few days, two more women have come forward to accuse Donald Trump of groping them and kissing them without their consent. These two women are the tenth and eleventh women so far, and these two are both represented by Gloria Allred. The tenth is named Karena Virginia, and she claims that Trump approached her at the 1998 US Open and grabbed her, then felt her up in front of witnesses. When she flinched, he allegedly told her, “Don’t you know who I am?” The eleventh woman is named Jessica Drake, and she’s an adult film star. She claims she met Trump a decade ago at a Lake Tahoe golf tournament. Her story is even more detailed and it involves Trump repeatedly offering her money for sex. Go here to read her story.

I bring up these two new accusers because Trump can’t shut up about all of these women. Following his devastingly awful performances in three debates and getting booed at the Al Smith Dinner, Trump tried a last-chance campaign reboot on Saturday. He went to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania with the intention of revealing his plan for the first 100 days of his presidency (a cold chill just ran down my spine). Thankfully, no one’s talking about his “plan” because during the speech, he announced that following the election, he plans to sue all of the women who have come forward to tell their stories of sexual assault. He told the crowd (to cheers, I might add):

“Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.”

[From WaPo]

As many have pointed out, the thing about the Grab Them By the P-ssy Tape is that now Trump is his own corroborating witness to his sexual assaults. He literally bragged about sexual assaulting women, so when women came forward and said that they were sexually assaulted the same way Trump bragged about, the whole situation became fait accompli. Is Trump really going to sit there in a deposition and say “I never grabbed that woman by the p-ssy” when he literally told people that he grabs, gropes and kisses women without their consent?

And as other people have pointed out, Trump often threatens to sue people and media outlets without anything ever being filed. That being said, Peter Thiel has got his back. Thiel is the same billionaire who quietly funded Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, and now Gawker is no more. So will Trump sue his alleged victims, or the various media outlets who first reported their stories or both? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Photos courtesy of Getty, Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

100 Responses to “Donald Trump on his 11 groping-accusers: ‘All of these liars will be sued’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jules says:

    I can’t wait for this orange pig for go down in flames in Nov 8.

    • The New Classic says:

      From your keyboard to God’s ears. 🙌🏻

    • EM says:

      If by some chance he wins then we need to replace the P in POTUS to Pr**k.

      • VegasSchmagus says:

        He’ll be the “Groper In Chief” Can you imagine his first meeting as president with Angela Merkel? 🙂 Yep, never happen.

      • PaschaP says:

        @VegasSchmagus Angela Merkel had to unfortunately deal with suffering through years of meetings alongside Silvio Berlusconi… another tangerine-faced, misogynistic, creepy as hell, anti-immigrant POS.

        Drumpf and Berlusconi are pretty much cut from the same cloth.

      • Ama says:

        GROPP**S

      • Lena says:

        @Vegas and PaschaP: Angela Merkel already had to deal with one us president groping her, she definitely doesn’t deserve to have to deal with a second one! (bush once creeped behind her and started to give her a back rub. She grimaced.)

      • LoveIsBlynd says:

        I can’t rally behind a pig as a bad thing- there is no comparison. Trump isn’t an innocent animal but seems intentionally cruel and self-serving. Is there a law against a presidential candidate -not- revealing taxes? Seems worse to me than the birther charges?

    • Nancito says:

      I am Canadian, and I really pity the American people because the aftermath of Election Day will be totally epic mayhem whether or not Trump wins. If he wins it will be four years of THAT MAN, and if he doesn’t he will be calling his supporters to anarchy.

      • LoveIsBlynd says:

        “Anarchy” for the republican base consists of purchasing bigger dirtier trucks with exhaust pipes the size of silos. Kind of cutting off your nose to spite your own elected president type thing. Add a few stickers of Calvin urinating on said elected president and there we have the under belly’s version of anarchy.

      • SusanneToo says:

        @Love. Don’t forget the Rebel flag and the gun rack.

    • marjiscott says:

      While that would be immensely satisfying, what if he does what he is threatening to do? What if Trump does not concede? What if the election is so close, (which MAY happen) he does not recognise Mrs. Clinton winning?

  2. Emma33 says:

    Gives new meaning to the phrase, ‘He said, she said’.

  3. swak says:

    I find it interesting that he is saying this now. What if (and hopefully not) he does get elected? Is he going to sue these women still? If he hasn’t sealed his fate then I give up. He honestly must know he is not going to win and is setting the scene to blame anyone and everyone for not winning (including his wife) – which is he already putting the blame out there.

    • DSW says:

      I know, right? Get elected to the highest office in the country, and, instead of getting to work on the issues facing said country, you’re filing personal lawsuits? WTF?!

  4. Birdix says:

    Thiel was operating out of self-interest though–he funded Hogan’s case as revenge for Gawker outing him as gay. That’s an interesting question. I doubt Trump could succeed on his own, but could he find a surrogate?

    • Bridget says:

      Thiel donated a substantial sum of money to the Trump campaign, and it’s been a pretty big deal in Silicon Valley. He’s pretty icky himself.

  5. lightpurple says:

    Oh, dear, Donald. For most of these women, any statute of limitations had long tolled on your assaults of them but by suing them, you enable them to raise counterclaims.

    • susanne says:

      shush shush! I do not know the law, but what you say makes sense. He will not sue. It would only draw more attention.

    • Emma33 says:

      Does that mean they could make a civil claim against him? (Or a criminal claim?)

    • Lolo86lf says:

      Even if those women don’t go after Donald Trump in court, this a list of things he might lose based on their claims:
      * The election
      * Speeches to women’s organizations
      * business deals

    • Lorelai says:

      @LightPurple, HAHAHAHA! That would be fantastic if he goes through with it, in that case. 🙂

  6. trollontheloose says:

    many lawyers say that he stands no ground but a dozen offer to work pro bono for these women. I expect many more to come out. These women are not suing him or are after his money. they just wanted to give support to the others and feel liberated after all these years. The one who won’t come out of the shadow won’t do it because they fear lawsuit.

    • Mary Mary says:

      This may be the Cosby moment for D Trump. The women accusers coming forward to feel the freeing moment of telling their truth their story and why this man should not be hero worshipped nor is he presidential material as Predator-in-Chief.

  7. Patricia says:

    Our country is a disgrace. People have so much need, so much needs to be accomplished. Yet here we are, weeks away from an election, and all this candidate can make news for is his sexual assault scandal. How is this happening?

    And cue all the people saying that because Drake is an adult film star she must be lying/deserved it/asked for it etc. People don’t understand that it’s unacceptable to lay hands on ANY woman under ANY circumstance if it’s unwanted and permission is not asked.

    • Kitten says:

      I’m terrified to check FB this morning because I’m certain two of my friends (passionate in both their adoration of HRC and their hatred of Trump) will be sharing links to this news and the usual handful of misogynists will be flocking to it with their hate-filled comments.

      • swak says:

        My FB friends cancel out yours as I have some that are so Pro-Trump that anything that comes out against HRC is posted immediately. Can’t wait until this is over – but I’m sure there will be another sh!t storm from Trump.

      • bettyrose says:

        The internet is not a safe place just now, but what I really and truly don’t get is the “if it really happened they would have spoken up before now.”

        Spoken up to whom about what? I mean, at this point all American women have come forward sharing their stories about being gropped by strange men, usually as girls or teens, but how many of us would have ever thought to go to the police? Did we even know it was a crime? Recent events have provided a forum for women assaulted by Trump to come forward, and they’re doing the right thing, but in most cases I wouldn’t have wished on them the backlash had they come forward when these incidents occurred, especially as there wasn’t likely to be a criminal investigation into a claim of gropping.

        The only way to fight this behavior is for it to become socially unacceptable, the kind of thing witnesses and bystanders won’t tolerate. At least we’re having conversations about it now.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Patricia, your first paragraph sums up exactly how I feel. I’m starting to reach the point where I start avoiding any and all coverage of this shitshow and hibernate for a few months until it’s all over. It is simply too disillusioning to keep thinking about.

    • Katie says:

      Amen to that. Attention is diverted away from so many important issues, like education.

  8. RussianBlueCat says:

    If Donald had ex wives Ivana Trump and Marla Maples sign NDA in their divorce settlements. Could they be called as witnesses by the defendant’s lawyers in a potential lawsuit and be permitted to speak freely about being married to Donald?

    • susanne says:

      Who is on call for celebitchy legal this morning?

    • Nicole (the Cdn one) says:

      I don’t know US law, but in Canada a NDA would be subject to the express or implied requirement that it does not apply where the information is required by law. Loosely, that means where required by statute (or subordinate legislation), by order of the court or the individual subject to the NDA would suffer some penalty from non disclosure. Usually civil courts respect NDAs and would not require a witness to violate one in response to a subpoena, but if you could convince the Court that the party with the benefit of the NDA was trying to perpetrate a fraud on the Court, you might have a shot at the judge ordering at least an in camera hearing of the evidence and then admitting it for that purpose.

      • SapphireJD says:

        NDAs are valid and enforceable absent fraud, duress and a few other things. Marla Maples already had an incident where she had written a book, then had her alimony halted with a legal reminder she was bound to keep her mouth shut. No book and the funds started again.

    • JurisGal says:

      Most communications between spouses during a marriage are privileged. So, it is doubtful they can testify about anything during the marriage (with exceptions) if he does not waive the privilege ( and he would not, of course) —but someone who handles these types of cases would know best. I do believe testimonial privilege stands ( about matters that happened during the marriage) even after divorce.

      • Nicole (the Cdn one) says:

        Interesting. In Canada spouses are not compellable witnesses but no privilege exists so one spouse cannot prevent another from testifying.

      • lightpurple says:

        He has no say over whether his wife waives privilege or not. As it stands now, the only one who can claim marital privilege in a case involving Donald Trump is Melania. And SHE would be the one who chooses whether to waive that privilege or not; he has NO say. Ivanna and Marla can no longer claim the privilege.

        And, thank you, moderator for dealing with that problem.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      In criminal testimony in most US states, the witness spouse is the one with the right to claim or waive testimony.
      The marital communications privilege is tricky, but a physically abusive act (such as sexual assault) would not be covered.
      “Most states also have a statute stating that if one spouse is the victim of abuse by the other spouse, the victim’s testimony can be compelled and spousal privilege cannot be asserted.”
      Since the testimony can be compelled, this would overrule the NDA. But this is for criminal cases.
      However, even in a civil suit that communications privilege is waived IF the spouse has previously disclosed a significant portion of the material under discussion.
      So the fact that T-rump made the statements he did to Billy Bush, in a non-committal environment, means any marital communication of such statements are probably no longer privileged.
      “Typically, a person who has a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if he or his predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. “

      • Lightpurple says:

        And the privilege dissolves when the marriage does. If he wanted her to stay silent, he should have stayed married

      • JurisGal says:

        Lightpurple:

        I was under the impression that the privilege exists even post-divorce- meaning the now ex can not tetstify about confidential communications that took place during the marriage. Perhaps my understanding is limited to civil cases as I also was under the impression that either spouse can invoke the privilege to prevent the other’s testimony, that the privilege is not ‘held’ by the witness-spouse. Isn’t the privilege two-fold?

    • lightpurple says:

      I’ve never encountered a NDA in my litigation but I would zealously argue against it having any weight against a subpoena, “the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but …”

      • SapphireJD says:

        That’s an interesting idea. I wonder if a NDA would survive a challenge in a criminal proceeding . I only know them from civil litigation.

  9. Lolo86lf says:

    I can only imagine what Melania must be feeling now that she learned (assuming she believes it) that a porn star came forward to reveal her now husband offered her $10,000.00 for sex and she turned him down. It is refreshing to see that even porn stars have standards.

    • Tate says:

      I don’t think Melania cares. See seems cold as ice with her eye on the prize. She wanted to be married to a billionaire. I mean, do we really think she married him for his looks or personality??

    • Jayna says:

      I don’t believe at least part or maybe all of her story. Just because many legit women have come forward doesn’t mean there aren’t a couple grabbing their 15 minutes of fame.

      • Arpeggi says:

        And this why many women don’t come forward about sexual assault. Sex workers are amongst to most likely people to be victim of sexual abuse. But because their job is seen as a character flaw, they aren’t likely to be believed. Why would she lie and not a journalist or a business women? Why would it be unlikely for a man like Trump to think that because she works in adult films, she’ll accept to sleep with him for money and could not imagine she would refuse? I have no problem believing her story. She has nothing to gain from such an exposure.

      • Anastasia says:

        And I feel the opposite: I see no reason to disbelieve her, and no reason to believe him.

      • Veronica says:

        I actually find it more believable because she is a sex worker. Because she engages in sex for monetary purposes, she’s more likely to be seen as a “willing victim,” more promiscuous and inherently less moral because of her career choice, therefore less likely to be seen as a viable witness in a court of law (and public opinion). The kind of victim predators gladly go after.

    • eto says:

      I mean…a porn star isn’t a prostitute but I get what you mean.

      • EMAu says:

        Of course not….when they’re not filming, they’ll dance or escort for money – for less than 10K…Just saying.

  10. QueenB says:

    Peter Thiel acted out of self interest. if Trump had a good chance of winning Thiel would certainly fund his lawsuits because a president who owes you sounds like a nice thing to have. but Trump is not only losing but ruining his reputation world wide, thats not good for business so i doubt Thiel will help him.

    also Trump is an idiot. yeah thats hardly news but he is giving Allred ammunition for a defamation lawsuit and thats not going to work out great for him.

  11. Shelly says:

    RussianBlueCat
    If there is evidence that the NDA is being used to cover a crime it can be lifted. Early in campaign there were reports that DT raped Ivana which was brought up in their divorce. Ivana denied it but I’m thinking it was probably true. Most likely, the story would have to have been corroborated independently or she told someone about the rape. I think Ivana could still be questioned in court about the story and whether she lied etc. Potentially a very good lawyer could jam her up and force her hand about whether there an actual rape.

  12. Melly says:

    At what point can these women sue him for defamation of character?

  13. trollontheloose says:

    an excerpt of the book “The last Tycoon”

    “The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’ ” Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana’s deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends”.

    • Donna says:

      Omg. He should be behind bars, not running for President if that and the many other sexual assault allegations are true, which I strongly suspect they are. I wonder what threats are being used on Ivana to make her deny the story now? Or maybe her children have convinced her? Which is very, very sad if so.

      • trollontheloose says:

        this is the same guy who said he could get away with murder and his supporters will cheer him.

        “Trump was deposed during the divorce, too. According to a report by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, which examined the divorce records, Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination approximately a hundred times when Ivana’s lawyers asked him about adulterous relations with other women.”

        when he wanted to reissue his book trumps’ lawyers threaten to mess up his life. and none of the network wanted to receive him but Megan kelyn. it was only ater the women came out that CNN decided it was ok. these medias have no balls.

    • Anastasia says:

      Yikes. That’s far too specific, detailed, and believable to brush off.

  14. Kylie says:

    I doubt he will sue. Numerous statements he has made over the years in interviews, show he is a predator.

  15. LiterallyaShambles says:

    “What will you do in your first 100 days in office? ”
    “Sue my sexual assault accusers.”
    That’s his plan for his first 100 days in office. I just…

  16. Snappyfish says:

    Notice he makes no mention of Salma Hayek. When she rejected him he claimed to the National Inquirier that he wouldn’t date her because she was too short.

    Maybe because her husband is an actual Billionaire

    • Snazzy says:

      ha ha ha ya, I saw that! He couldn’t say anything against him as he is an actually business mogul versus trump’s .. well whatever he is

    • Saks says:

      Yes, I read that story yesterday! He was trying to date Salma (who was with Edward Norton at the time) he got mad when she told him that even if she hadn’t a boyfriend she wouldn’t date him

  17. Bonzo says:

    Nick Kristof tweeted out that Trump wouldn’t sue because of what would come out in the discovery phase.

  18. Snowflake says:

    Yeah, right, he’s not going to sue them. He’s just saying that to give the illusion he’s innocent to his supporters. There’s as much chance of him suing them as there is of him releasing his tax returns.

  19. Neo says:

    I hope he sues, loses, and gets hit with a successful countersuit. Ivanka’s claim rings absolutely true to this man’s criminal, narcissistic character.

  20. SusanneToo says:

    I’m watching Face the Nation and one Nevada woman just said she’s voting for morality and values and that’s why she’s voting for trump. JFC!!

    • MellyMel says:

      Uuugggggghhhhh!!

    • Snowflake says:

      Wtf? I have zero respect the republican party. They claim morals and they put this guy up for president knowing his past. Then they defend him and say hes better than bill clinton??! Bending over backwards to support him. What a bunch of hypocrites. They hate Hillary so much, they would elect a frog if it was running for Pres over Hillary.

    • VegasSchmagus says:

      SusanneToo: I just saw FTN, and it makes me wonder what word these people are HEARING when he’s talking, because they’re not the words he’s saying.

    • Neil says:

      They buy their own propaganda but so what else is new? Whenever one thinks about Republicans and their ownership of all things moral the first word that always comes to mind is hypocrite. The second word is delusional.

  21. sauvage says:

    Donald Trump is totally going to sue these women, just like he promised. Just like he totally presented those health reports of his, just like he promised; or just like he totally presented the receipts on Melania’s visa history, just like he promised.

    Oh – wait.

  22. Keats says:

    VERY MUCH looking forward to the discovery request on behalf of these women.

  23. Tiffany says:

    Tons of lawyers have already said they will take these ladies cases pro bono. And these lawyers are very creditable. People have already stated they will contribute to any fund to help. Mussolini wannabe has to be seething that no one is scared of him and ready to destroy him in a court of law.

  24. MAK5 says:

    Bring it on loser! His entire life will be exposed in these suits, and with the Trump U suit being tried this fall, we will see just how corrupt and dishonest he is. The end result of all of these cases will be the personal bankruptcy of Donald Trump.

  25. Karina says:

    Did you watch Trump’s “walk off” when a reporter queried him about allegations of racial and sexual abuse? Okay, he answered part of the question by saying, “I am the least racist person you have ever met.” Ha! Ha! Ha!

    (The whole planet laughs!)

  26. Jaygee says:

    I was thrilled to see that the global chair of Gibson Dunn, an international law firm, offered to rep any woman sued by Trump pro bono. So I hope Trump does sue. He will get his @$$ handed back to him by a cadre of very talented lawyers. It’s easy to go broke litigating a case especially when the other side isn’t being charged and therefore isn’t restricted by what they can afford.

  27. mayamae says:

    I hope he does sue. Then Mark Cuban, or some other wealthy folks, can sponsor the women’s legal bills. And since one of the accusers appeared on The Apprentice, a judge could compel Mark Burnett to hand over the mother lode. Which is why I don’t think he will sue.

    • smd says:

      Exactly Mayamae! He’s just spouting off his usual nonsense so what supporters he has left can say
      “see, DT is gonna sue all those ladies so they must be lying.” On a side note other than this site I really can’t stomach much other media coverage of Trump. I keep hearing all this liberal media bias BS, yet it seems to me the media handled Trump with Kid gloves until that leaked tape. Then suddenly it was more acceptable to be critical of DT. Seriously, this guy is running for the highest office in the country why weren’t more critical think pieces being written earlier on?

  28. Lorelai says:

    I have never before wanted so badly to shout, “Just. SHUT. UP!!” at anyone.

    • Katie says:

      He is so tiresome. What a joke

    • Anastasia says:

      The moment he knows he lost on November 8th, the moment after his concession speech, I want him to completely disappear from public life permanently.

      Yeah, I know, won’t happen. I can dream, though.

  29. Margo S. says:

    Gloria Allred is such a bad ass. She is going to bring this “man” down. Trump you better watch it!

  30. VegasSchmagus says:

    I’m waiting for Melania to call Gloria Allred, probably after he loses, and after the first of the year (you know she has Gloria on speed dial). It’s just a matter of time before she files for divorce. The guy throws her under the bus every chance he gets. I can’t even imagine what abuse she has had to undergo on a daily basis. The only hold up would be what dish The Donald has on her (I’m sure her life is built on lies), and how much she cares about that stuff coming out. Will it cause a deportation? Does she have any dish on him that is much more explosive (I vote yes on that one). I kinda feel sorry for her – I’m sure most people would love to be in her Ferragamo shoes, but she really is a bird in a 24k gilded cage.

    • The Other Katherine says:

      She has a son with him, and that child’s habitual residence is in the USA. If there is any chance her citizenship could get revoked based on info DJT could reveal in a divorce, she will keep proceedings quiet and “amicable.” Unfortunately.

  31. Yoon says:

    I said this before and I’ll say it again, until it hopefully happens. This dude needs to be put down like the rabid dog he is. Piece of shit.

  32. Neil says:

    Billionaire Peter Thiel financed Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker. I think if all these women got together and started a gofundme campaign to create a legal war-chest they could have some fun individually counter suing the orange one. I would imagine there are a lot of people out there who would like nothing better than to see this “man” squirm for the next few years. I know I’d give the ladies a few dollars just to see that.
    Careful what you wish for, oh Orange One.

  33. jferber says:

    I have more sympathy for rabid dogs than for this man. And I’d feel safer with one of these suffering animals than with the Orange Animal Who Makes Everyone Else Around Him Suffer, which is the whole effing world.

  34. Marianne says:

    And then people wonder why so many women never say anything in the first place.

  35. JudyK says:

    He’s just saying he’s going to sue to intimidate any other women from coming forward. Depth, he has none–he’s as transparent as cellophane.

  36. Jaana says:

    A lot of different lawyers have pledged to represent the women pro bono should Trump sue. Lisa Bloom said she is looking forward to Trump suing so she can depose him.

  37. EMAu says:

    This election ought to be about what policies each will bring if elected. Instead it has devolved in a sledge match between both. Gloria Allred is an ambulance chaser. It’s not as though she is representing them because of her ethics. She reminds me of a male equivalent in Australia who will do anything for the media headlines and the potential work it will bring in.

  38. AnotherDirtyMartini says:

    The Emperor has no clothes. This is what happens when you surround yourself with yes people and when your father brought you up to believe you were a king. He’s ridiculous & horrible.

    I’m an American. It really bothers me that so many people fall for his act and also share his bigoted & narrow-minded views. I’ve known we have needed better education here for ages, but this election has been a huge eye opener.

    • JurisGal says:

      AnotherDirtyMartini:

      Amen, the willful ignorance is what gets me, people voting against their own self-interests then justifying it with ridiculous reasons and fear-mongering. The Palins , Gohmerts, Trumps, Bachmans, etc. of the country ( FNC too) have done so much damage, I fear it can not be reversed.