Did Donald Trump sexually assault any of the women who are accusing him?

[AGA]

I would say that there is not enough evidence to verify that the allegations are true, but the possibility should definitely not be ruled out. I am unsure.

[pppolitics]

There might not be enough evidence in the court of law, but use some common sense.

Why would there be videos of him boasting about it?

[ProudModerate2]

From the descriptions given by some of the women, trump's "actions" would fall under the category of a "sexual assault."
Now can it be proven in court is an entirely different case.
Also note that if one or more of the women were to sue trump in a civil court (for damages only), then the probability of them winning is much easier than in a criminal proceeding (which would be brought by the state).

[BoAtlantis]

Even if he didn't, it's interesting that it's not just one, but multiple women who risk death threats and harassments in order to make such public statement.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course he did

[Meclazine for Israel]

He has not been afforded due process.

You simply cannot make public statements about his alleged activities until he is prosecuted.

Otherwise you have just invented your very own online 'gutter scraping' court of law.

Atlas is better than that.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

From the descriptions given by some of the women, trump's "actions" would fall under the category of a "sexual assault."
Now can it be proven in court is an entirely different case.
Also note that if one or more of the women were to sue trump in a civil court (for damages only), then the probability of them winning is much easier than in a criminal proceeding (which would be brought by the state).

Pretty much this.

Although let's also not neglect that if Pussygrabber were a poor minority male, he'd have been jailed long, long ago for the exact same actions.

[Badger]

He has not been afforded due process.

You simply cannot make public statements about his alleged activities until he is prosecuted.

Otherwise you have just invented your very own online 'gutter scraping' court of law.

Atlas is better than that.

If you're only willing to base your vote on whether or not there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict iin court, you are correct. Common sense says otherwise, though.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Almost certainly not all of them, but not none of them, either.

[Pyro]

Probably.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Do bears shiite in the woods?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Eh, it's still innocent until proven guilty.

He's a total creep, though.

[Wells]

Unless we actually get video of him confessing to grabbing - oh wait.

[Hermit For Peace]

Maybe if one or two females came forward, I wouldn't think much about it. But now that 11 females have made statements about Trump's sexually aggressive behavior towards them, it does raise an eyebrow. Yes he should get his day in court if it comes to that, but this is an opinion forum.

My opinion is that Trump has sexually abused all sorts of women throughout many years. He just has that type of aggressive dominating personality. It's hard to hide one's head in the sand about these allegations.

[Hermit For Peace]

Eh, it's still innocent until proven guilty.

He's a total creep, though.

Yes he is innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law.

This forum is not a court of law. It's all about opinions here. And there are a lot of very smart posters who can see the writing on the wall regarding Trump's sexcapades.

[Ljube]

Of course not. The video was him bragging about nonexistent conquests. Classic case of locker room talk.

[Badger]

Of course not. The video was him bragging about nonexistent conquests. Classic case of locker room talk.

u suk

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

As Hillary Clinton, who IS running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey against Bill Clinton, whose Administration Hillary served in and to whom Hillary's own ambitions were directly tied to, I propose that everyone here attach the same level of credibility to Trump, Bill, and Hillary (for trashing and discrediting victims, and being complicit in Bill's actions). 

Let's have one standard, eh?

[Landslide Lyndon]

As Hillary Clinton, who IS running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey against Bill Clinton, whose Administration Hillary served in and to whom Hillary's own ambitions were directly tied to, I propose that everyone here attach the same level of credibility to Trump, Bill, and Hillary (for trashing and discrediting victims, and being complicit in Bill's actions). 

Let's have one standard, eh?

"I am Donald Trump and I approve this message"

[ApatheticAustrian]

Let's have one standard, eh?

besides the fact that those were already baked in into hillary's general perception before the new releases....new information always trumps (:-P) old one and in general it kills any advantage trump believed he would have had.

[Gustaf]

As Hillary Clinton, who IS running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey against Bill Clinton, whose Administration Hillary served in and to whom Hillary's own ambitions were directly tied to, I propose that everyone here attach the same level of credibility to Trump, Bill, and Hillary (for trashing and discrediting victims, and being complicit in Bill's actions). 

Let's have one standard, eh?

We've been over this and you already admitted that you have zero evidence for this and just feels that it's true because you hate Hillary Clinton.

It's amazing you'd think a woman being cheated on is as morally deplorable as bragging about sexual assault on powerless women. I thought you pretended to be a Christian?

[ProudModerate2]

As Hillary Clinton, who IS running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey against Bill Clinton, whose Administration Hillary served in and to whom Hillary's own ambitions were directly tied to, I propose that everyone here attach the same level of credibility to Trump, Bill, and Hillary (for trashing and discrediting victims, and being complicit in Bill's actions).  
Let's have one standard, eh?

We've been over this and you already admitted that you have zero evidence for this and just feels that it's true because you hate Hillary Clinton.
It's amazing you'd think a woman being cheated on is as morally deplorable as bragging about sexual assault on powerless women. I thought you pretended to be a Christian?

Agree.
The problem with FuzzyBear's argument, is that Hillary is doing nothing at the present time to "actively working to discredit the allegations" of women who have been assaulted.
The person who is doing this now during the election cycle is trump.
And more importantly, America is concentrating on the individuals who supposedly DID the assaulting and the fact that trump "IS running for president" ; Bill Clinton is not.

[elcorazon]

how is this a question?

[Speed of Sound]

how is this a question?

Because Trumpists categorize people into three categories: The orange clown-emperor, white men, and everyone else. The first must always be believed and worshipped, the second are consistently first class, and the third isn't human. So this issue is 1st category vs. 3rd, never a competition.

[PRESIDENT STANTON]

I go by the adage "Innocent until proven guilty", the burden of proof is imposed on the accusers; not the accused. When someone says something, they should be held to the same standard we hold Trump to. Where's the fairness?