Straight Dope Message Board

[Onomatopoeia]

IANAL, but with news breaking about Jill Harth, and with Trump on tape gleefully admitting to at the very least sexual harassment, shouldn't he be arrested for sexual misconduct if not sexual assault? What's the law here, and the statute of limitations?

Yes, the tape of Trump verbally demeaning women is disgusting, but what is more disturbing to me is, with his words, he has established that there is a pattern of unacceptable and coercive actions he has taken in his sexual pursuit of women he finds attractive over the years. He didn't say "one time I did X." He said "You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women. I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait,” and “And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Trump is an absolute pig, but I think the latest revelation, if it can be corroborated by heretofore unknown victims of his unwanted advances, should do more than simply end his chances at the Presidency, it should land his ass in jail. 1

[Quartz]

Don't you have a statute of limitations in the US? 2

[AK84]

I don't think he has said anywhere that the actions were not consensual (quite the opposite actually) or that he improperly used a position of power to get consent; it was I "just kiss em, they let me cause I am rich and famous" as opposed to "gimme a blowjob if you want to stay on". (and yes, it would not surprise me if he has done that, but this recording is not this)

He's a Billionaire (yes yes I know ). Scoring chicks is never a problem for them. You think his wives married him for his looks and winning personality? 3

[ganthet]

There are several issues:

1) Lack of specificity - Trump did not admit to committing any kind of involuntary, non-consensual assault/sexual assault at a given time, place, and on a specific person. Without these details, it is impossible to charge him with a specific crime that took place in the jurisdiction of a particular court.

2) Trump did not admit to doing anything without consent since his assertion was precisely that women would consent to him trying to flirt with, kiss, touch, etc. them because he was famous.

3) Corpus - even if the first two things were not issues and that Trump did admit to touching a woman with a sexual intent and without her permission at a specific time, place, and with a particular woman, there is no independent evidence that this happened (namely a specific woman's statement alleging such an incident that corresponds with the details in his statements).

4) Statute of limitations - again, even assuming that there was an actual admitted assault/sexual assault here, since each state has their own laws establishing separate statutes of limitations, there is no way of telling what the time limitations would be here without knowing the location. 4

[BigT]

Originally Posted by AK84

I don't think he has said anywhere that the actions were not consensual (quite the opposite actually) or that he improperly used a position of power to get consent; it was I "just kiss em, they let me cause I am rich and famous" as opposed to "gimme a blowjob if you want to stay on". (and yes, it would not surprise me if he has done that, but this recording is not this)

He's a Billionaire (yes yes I know ). Scoring chicks is never a problem for them. You think his wives married him for his looks and winning personality?

Yes, he did. He admits to tricks he does to kiss people, for one. Tricks aren't consensual. 5

[AK84]

I cannot believe I am defending Trump here, but no he did not. Its crass, vulgar and vintage Trump, but nothing in their suggests he did anything unlawful. 6

[John Mace]

Which law does the OP think Trump has broken? Please be specific and also check statute of limitations. Hint: The recently reviewed video is form 11 years ago.

Now, if we have a real, live woman who steps forward and has an actionable complaint within the last 7 years (typical of SoL), then there might be something. 7

[Emtar KronJonDerSohn]

So you're just now realizing he's vulgar and crass?

And I'd be interested to know under which statute in which jurisdiction he might be arrested for "sexual harassment." 8

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Emtar KronJonDerSohn

And I'd be interested to know under which statute in which jurisdiction he might be arrested for "sexual harassment."

Originally Posted by John Mace

Which law does the OP think Trump has broken? Please be specific and also check statute of limitations. Hint: The recently reviewed video is form 11 years ago.

Listen you two, I stated that I am not a lawyer, and was asking those here more knowledgable than I what the law and statute of limitations is. If you have answers to my questions fine. If you don't then say so.

Originally Posted by AK84

I don't think he has said anywhere that the actions were not consensual (quite the opposite actually) or that he improperly used a position of power to get consent; it was I "just kiss em, they let me cause I am rich and famous" as opposed to "gimme a blowjob if you want to stay on". (and yes, it would not surprise me if he has done that, but this recording is not this)

You're wrong. He specifically stated that he went after Nancy O'Dell "heavy" but she rebuffed him. That certainly does not sound consensual to me. Does that mean he grabbed or groped her? No, but he did say that is something he does.

Also, Jill Harth testified that Trump did do that type of thing to her. Are you going to spin that as somehow consensual as well?

Based on what I have read, and heard from Trump's own mouth, I consider him a sexual predator. Does what he has admitted to rise to the level of criminal activity, I think so, but again, read carefully: I am not a lawyer. 9

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Listen you two, I stated that I am not a lawyer, and was asking those here more knowledgable than I what the law and statute of limitations is. If you have answers to my questions fine. If you don't then say so.

Did you read the second part of my post. THE PART YOU LEFT OUT OF YOUR QUOTE??? That answers your question. 10

[Exapno Mapcase]

Sexual harassment is normally a civil offense not a criminal one. It may rise to the level of a crime in the workplace, but not as a matter of dating.

ganthet already answered the question properly. I can't see anything in the video that rises to a criminal complaint, and that would be true if the tape were made yesterday. 11

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Which law does the OP think Trump has broken? Please be specific and also check statute of limitations. Hint: The recently reviewed video is form 11 years ago.

Now, if we have a real, live woman who steps forward and has an actionable complaint within the last 7 years (typical of SoL), then there might be something.

The OP is asking a question. He's not making a statement as you seem to imply.

ETA: statute of limitations in CA
Sexual offenses against a minor
Before victim
turns 28

Rape
10 years

And discovering who the rapist is via DNA evidence at a later date, may change those. 12

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

You're wrong. He specifically stated that he went after Nancy O'Dell "heavy" but she rebuffed him. That certainly does not sound consensual to me. Does that mean he grabbed or groped her? No, but he did say that is something he does.

Also, Jill Harth testified that Trump did do that type of thing to her. Are you going to spin that as somehow consensual as well?

Based on what I have read, and heard from Trump's own mouth, I consider him a sexual predator. Does what he has admitted to rise to the level of criminal activity, I think so, but again, read carefully: I am not a lawyer.

No he is not wrong. Sexual advances that are rebuffed are not a crime. There have to be some pretty specific (jurisdiction specific) actions for it to rise to a crime. It may be a tort but not a crime.

It was explained to you that it does not rise to the level of a crime especially since he wasn't specifically talking about anyone. In a previous post the term corpus was used. Cops have the saying "No victim no crime." 13

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Did you read the second part of my post. THE PART YOU LEFT OUT OF YOUR QUOTE??? That answers your question.

There is no need to become agitated, John. I quoted the part of your post I meant to wherein you asked me for answers to questions I asked in the OP. 14

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Loach

No he is not wrong. Sexual advances that are rebuffed are not a crime. There have to be some pretty specific (jurisdiction specific) actions for it to rise to a crime. It may be a tort but not a crime.

Okay, now I think we are getting somewhere. Thanks. So if what Trump did to Nancy O'Dell was not a crime, which I am okay with stipulating, does that mean it was consensual?

Originally Posted by Loach

It was explained to you that it does not rise to the level of a crime especially since he wasn't specifically talking about anyone. In a previous post the term corpus was used. Cops have the saying "No victim no crime."

Okay, understood. What about the Jill Harth case? 15

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

The OP is asking a question. He's not making a statement as you seem to imply.

ETA: statute of limitations in CA
Sexual offenses against a minor
Before victim
turns 28

Rape
10 years

And discovering who the rapist is via DNA evidence at a later date, may change those.

Very different by state. No statute of limitations for sexual assault in NJ. 16

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Loach

No he is not wrong. Sexual advances that are rebuffed are not a crime. There have to be some pretty specific (jurisdiction specific) actions for it to rise to a crime. It may be a tort but not a crime.

It was explained to you that it does not rise to the level of a crime especially since he wasn't specifically talking about anyone. In a previous post the term corpus was used. Cops have the saying "No victim no crime."

Hold on. I think that needs further explanation. Criminal law (your field), not civil.

What is a sexual advance, is it physical or merely words? (in your jurisdiction if you like) Can Joe grab Jill's crotch one time and stop when she says "no," and not have committed a crime? Does it matter if they are friends or strangers? 17

[Corry El]

Originally Posted by ganthet

There are several issues:

1) Lack of specificity - Trump did not admit to committing any kind of involuntary, non-consensual assault/sexual assault at a given time, place, and on a specific person. Without these details, it is impossible to charge him with a specific crime that took place in the jurisdiction of a particular court.

2) Trump did not admit to doing anything without consent since his assertion was precisely that women would consent to him trying to flirt with, kiss, touch, etc. them because he was famous.

3) Corpus - even if the first two things were not issues and that Trump did admit to touching a woman with a sexual intent and without her permission at a specific time, place, and with a particular woman, there is no independent evidence that this happened (namely a specific woman's statement alleging such an incident that corresponds with the details in his statements).

4) Statute of limitations - again, even assuming that there was an actual admitted assault/sexual assault here, since each state has their own laws establishing separate statutes of limitations, there is no way of telling what the time limitations would be here without knowing the location.

Yeah, other than that it's a slam dunk prosecution.

Seriously though, it doesn't matter if random people on the internet go overboard with this, that's what the internet is for. But it illustrates the possibility of Democrats overplaying it, which even in their glee the more level headed ones surely realize.

What you have is video, not just audio not just somebody saying so, of Trump crudely speaking of women then getting off the bus and all 'charming' to the woman in the purple dress (IMO that's a serious part of it, rather than just what's said on the bus). Creep. That's really it, good stuff for anti-Trump purposes, but really no need to try to invent some phony criminal aspect. 18

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Sexual harassment is normally a civil offense not a criminal one. It may rise to the level of a crime in the workplace, but not as a matter of dating.

Interestingly, there's a story out now noting that Nancy O'Dell -- the married woman he tried to move on "heavily", the one he "failed" to bed when he "moved on her like a bitch" and so on and so forth -- is somebody he then apparently tried to get fired from hosting the Miss USA pageant back when he owned it. 19

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Okay, understood. What about the Jill Harth case?

Here is the SoL law in FL, where the crime allegedly was committed. Looks like it's well past the limit. 20

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Here is the SoL law in FL, where the crime allegedly was committed. Looks like it's well past the limit.

Got it. Thanks. 21

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Okay, now I think we are getting somewhere. Thanks. So if what Trump did to Nancy O'Dell was not a crime, which I am okay with stipulating, does that mean it was consensual?
Okay, understood. What about the Jill Harth case?

Does anyone know how a sexual advance will be received before it happens? When you make whatever your patented move is do you stop and ask consent first? If someone makes an advance and is rebuffed and they stop there is no crime. It may be the tort of sexual harassment.

The Jill Harth case might be a crime but I am not familiar with the law in Florida and especially not familiar with Florida caselaw which is not easily googlable. As I understand it the case was never investigated as a crime and only went forward as a lawsuit.

I have no doubt that Trump at least skirted the line up to assault and is a horrible person. If people want to think of him as a rapist then fine as long as he doesn't get elected. 22

[Loach]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Here is the SoL law in FL, where the crime allegedly was committed. Looks like it's well past the limit.

The lawsuit happened in 1997. It's not like it wasn't brought up until the SoL ran out. As far as I know she made no attempt to go after him any where but in civil court.

Even if there was no statute of limitations I'm pretty sure these statements would not be admissible in any trial. 23

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Loach

The lawsuit happened in 1997. It's not like it wasn't brought up until the SoL ran out. As far as I know she made no attempt to go after him any where but in civil court.

Even if there was no statute of limitations I'm pretty sure these statements would not be admissible in any trial.

Harth actually did file a sexual harassment suit, which alleged attempted rape, but withdrew the suit as a condition of the $100,000 settlement she said Trump paid her. 24

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Corry El

Seriously though, it doesn't matter if random people on the internet go overboard with this, that's what the internet is for. But it illustrates the possibility of Democrats overplaying it, which even in their glee the more level headed ones surely realize.

Exactly. Let me emphasize this. The Democrats should not imitate Trump. Trump has been spewing out barrels of lying propaganda against both Clintons and calling for at least Hilary's arrest. The Democrats should not copy that behavior. They should stick to facts and official findings - because that's what makes Democrats different from Republicans. It's a good difference and one that needs to be preserved. Trump is offering plenty of rope. No need to invent a new string.

If this sinks Trump, it does so with the usual perversity of politics. We know his personality. Probably nobody on earth aware of him will be truly surprised he said this. Or a hundred other things exactly like this. He has in fact said a hundred things in the same ballpark, not just about women but about every group that isn't his own family. This is a nothing in the larger picture of what we know about Trump. Yet this might be the one thing that sticks when a hundred similar or worse things slide. Nobody has ever figured out why some things get headline news and others just like them are local stories. Stuff just happens. This may be his Dukakis tank moment. Or tomorrow's debate may produce a new outrage that wipes this out of public memory. Nobody knows. 25

[Arcite]

Originally Posted by ganthet

There are several issues:

1) Lack of specificity - Trump did not admit to committing any kind of involuntary, non-consensual assault/sexual assault at a given time, place, and on a specific person. Without these details, it is impossible to charge him with a specific crime that took place in the jurisdiction of a particular court.

2) Trump did not admit to doing anything without consent since his assertion was precisely that women would consent to him trying to flirt with, kiss, touch, etc. them because he was famous.

3) Corpus - even if the first two things were not issues and that Trump did admit to touching a woman with a sexual intent and without her permission at a specific time, place, and with a particular woman, there is no independent evidence that this happened (namely a specific woman's statement alleging such an incident that corresponds with the details in his statements).

4) Statute of limitations - again, even assuming that there was an actual admitted assault/sexual assault here, since each state has their own laws establishing separate statutes of limitations, there is no way of telling what the time limitations would be here without knowing the location.

Good summary.

When I was a kid, I used to wonder--and be outraged by--how so many people were such obvious Bad Guys, even to the extent of admitting in public that they continually broke the law, and were allowed to get away with it. "People talk about these mafia bosses as though everyone knows they're in the mafia," I thought, "why don't the police just go and arrest them?" Rock stars and rap stars repeatedly, openly, even defiantly referenced their own, ongoing use of illegal drugs--why don't the police march right down to their houses and arrest them?

The Real World just doesn't work that way. 26

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Harth actually did file a sexual harassment suit, which alleged attempted rape, but withdrew the suit as a condition of the $100,000 settlement she said Trump paid her.

Yes I said it was brought up in civil court. What I was trying to say is that this is not a case of someone coming forward with allegations after the statute of limitations ran out. Her allegations came out in time for a criminal investigation but she chose to sue. I don't know why. Maybe advice of counsel. 27

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Loach

The lawsuit happened in 1997. It's not like it wasn't brought up until the SoL ran out.

Yes, but we were asked about it's relevance now, which is why I brought up the SoL. 28

[Loach]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Yes, but we were asked about it's relevance now, which is why I brought up the SoL.

True but even without that I don't think it would be allowed in court. There would be arguments both ways for sure. 29

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Loach

True but even without that I don't think it would be allowed in court. There would be arguments both ways for sure.

Are you saying that the DA would probably not be willing to charge Trump with a criminal offense? 30

[Loach]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Are you saying that the DA would probably not be willing to charge Trump with a criminal offense?

I was doubling back to the OP saying that this recording would not be admissible at trial at a hypothetical Jill Harth case or some other hypothetical victim. 31

[boffking]

He managed to get away with fraud, bribery, violating the Cuban embargo, tax evasion, and inciting violence. I agree that he should be arrested, and you or I would be arrested for these actions. But unfortunately he seems unstoppable, and I doubt he will face legal consequences for this scandal either. 32

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Loach

I was doubling back to the OP saying that this recording would not be admissible at trial at a hypothetical Jill Harth case or some other hypothetical victim.

Oh, OK. I didn't get that from your post, but it makes sense now. 33

[billfish678]

That Hugh Mongus guy on youtube is deep legal shit apparently if he ever runs for president anytime soon. 34

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

The OP is asking a question. He's not making a statement as you seem to imply.

Just Asking Questions?

There should be a term for that. 35

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Loach

Does anyone know how a sexual advance will be received before it happens? When you make whatever your patented move is do you stop and ask consent first? If someone makes an advance and is rebuffed and they stop there is no crime. It may be the tort of sexual harassment.

The Jill Harth case might be a crime but I am not familiar with the law in Florida and especially not familiar with Florida caselaw which is not easily googlable. As I understand it the case was never investigated as a crime and only went forward as a lawsuit.

I have no doubt that Trump at least skirted the line up to assault and is a horrible person. If people want to think of him as a rapist then fine as long as he doesn't get elected.

You could test this, go to a mall, or a public park and walk up to women, kiss them and grab their genitals.

I doubt that you have the budget to buy lawyers but I am betting it will answer you question on if it is illegal or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us...hardtdaily.com 36

[JohnT]

Let me get on the record, again, that I fully expect Donald Trump to be in handcuffs within 3 years. There are too many crimes, too many pissed off people, too many powerful politicians who no longer can stand the man, his goose is literally and effectively cooked.

I'll even go further out in a limb and say it's going to be a RICO indictment: There are too many organizations and too many crimes to prosecute effectively, both operationally (with multiple jurisdictions) and the cost.

Rico is likely the only answer. Otherwise, the Department of Justice, the state of New York, the State of Florida, the FEC, the IRS, and multiple other jurisdictions have to spend their time and money prosecuting Donald Trump in any of his three organizations.

Again, in my admittedly not legal opinion 37

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Which law does the OP think Trump has broken? Please be specific and also check statute of limitations. Hint: The recently reviewed video is form 11 years ago.

Now, if we have a real, live woman who steps forward and has an actionable complaint within the last 7 years (typical of SoL), then there might be something.

Take your pick. The SoL is expired on some of the sexual assaults though.

http://www.revelist.com/politics/tru...other-crimes/1

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrump...hy_trump_is_a/ 38

[Declan]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Let me get on the record, again, that I fully expect Donald Trump to be in handcuffs within 3 years. There are too many crimes, too many pissed off people, too many powerful politicians who no longer can stand the man, his goose is literally and effectively cooked.

Or in a few weeks, he is going to be president elect, in which case those same powerful people will line up at the trough. Business is business.

Declan 39

[Loach]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

You could test this, go to a mall, or a public park and walk up to women, kiss them and grab their genitals.

I doubt that you have the budget to buy lawyers but I am betting it will answer you question on if it is illegal or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us...hardtdaily.com

Wow I didn't realize that's what Trump did! Your link didn't mention it. I'll go off right now and find the story.

In the mean time I'll just let you know I'm an SVU detective who has been investigating sex crimes for the last six years. I'm always willing to learn more so I'll look forward to your next posts. 40

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Loach

Wow I didn't realize that's what Trump did! Your link didn't mention it. I'll go off right now and find the story.

In the mean time I'll just let you know I'm an SVU detective who has been investigating sex crimes for the last six years. I'm always willing to learn more so I'll look forward to your next posts.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/don...-rape-lawsuit/

I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

I personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria [to] perform oral sex on Mr. Trump and witnessed his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act.

It was my job to personally witness and supervise encounters between the underage girls that Mr. Epstein hired and his guests.

41

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Declan

Or in a few weeks, he is going to be president elect, in which case those same powerful people will line up at the trough. Business is business.

Declan

Naw, he isn't going to win. Hillary's ground game and his own party will make sure of that. The RNC has suspended campaign activities for Trump, and he was depending upon them to GOTV. And people are already voting! 42

[Morgenstern]

I've watched the Trump supporters spin this story so many ways it's pathetic. A decade ago, that's not who he is, boys in a locker room. For craps sake people, it IS who he is, it's who he's been for a long time. It's who he'll be for the rest of his life.

If he thought he could kiss and grope women when he was a star, what do you think he'll think he can do to women as POTUS?

We had a jerk like this as mayor of San Diego a few years back. He thought being the mayor gave him the right to sexually harass women. The law disagreed, and the city paid out a lot of money in settlements for what he did to the women. Everyone loses when a jerkwad can't keep his hands to himself. 43

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/don...-rape-lawsuit/

Yes I was aware there is a lawsuit but at this time there is as much proof that it happened as there is for the Anita Broderick case. If it is true then it would of course be a crime. 44

[JohnT]

"70yo admits 60yo self was crude, assures he has matured since then." 45

[Loach]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Naw, he isn't going to win. Hillary's ground game and his own party will make sure of that. The RNC has suspended campaign activities for Trump, and he was depending upon them to GOTV. And people are already voting!

It certainly looks now like he won't win. There are plenty of people who have made their mind up about him that won't change but not enough to win. Hopefully no October surprises coming out on the other end to swing things back. 46

[Loach]

Originally Posted by JohnT

"70yo admits 60yo self was crude, assures he has matured since then."

Brilliant 47

[Tim@T-Bonham.net]

Originally Posted by Loach

Yes I said it was brought up in civil court. What I was trying to say is that this is not a case of someone coming forward with allegations after the statute of limitations ran out. Her allegations came out in time for a criminal investigation but she chose to sue. I don't know why. Maybe advice of counsel.

"she chose to sue" because that is all she could do on her own.

Criminal prosecutions are done by the County Attorney, not individuals. And County Attorneys are elected, and need contributions from rich, powerful men to run their campaigns. So they tend to be hesitant about indicting them. Especially when the only evidence is the word of a young woman.

Nothing surprising about this, 48

[purplehearingaid]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/trump...dangerous.html



Yeah I think he should had been arrested for saying against Hillary ! 49

[Loach]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

"she chose to sue" because that is all she could do on her own.

Criminal prosecutions are done by the County Attorney, not individuals. And County Attorneys are elected, and need contributions from rich, powerful men to run their campaigns. So they tend to be hesitant about indicting them. Especially when the only evidence is the word of a young woman.

Nothing surprising about this,

Cite?

The prosecutor wouldn't have a chance to make that determination if there wasn't a police report or further investigation. Did she try? I haven't seen anything about it but I don't know one way or the other. If she did attempt and it didn't go anywhere you could form an opinion about it even without facts. But if she didn't attempt to go that route then yes she chose to sue. 50