More than 200 Republicans who previously worked for either former President Bush, Sen. McCain, or Sen. Romney, endorse VP Harris

[RestoreTheJoy]

Just because Trump wasn't criminally charged with rape doesn't mean he didn't rape Carroll.


There were thousands of victims of sexual assault who also filed claims during the same period, the law wasn't passed just so Carroll could sue Trump.

Do remember that the criminal standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt while the civil standard is much lower; by a preponderance of the evidence. 51% could have happened. There was NO rape finding and NO rape conviction; rape is a criminal charge so anyone using this inaccurate term is doing it for propaganda reasons. Facts are specific and one must use them to be credible. Some posters above indeed asserted this falsehood.

Carroll testified that Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room after a chance encounter one evening in the spring of 1996. The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her. But the jury did find him liable for sexual abuse and for defamation. The defamation count arose from a statement Trump made last year in which he called Carroll’s allegation a “hoax.”

Even though 28 years have passed, she suddenly did remember the incident.... because he was running for President again. Come on.

She could have come forth with this complaint any time in the interim and would have been more credible. But heavily Democrat district in New York found the sought for verdict.

 

[JosephZ]

There was NO rape finding and NO rape conviction; rape is a criminal charge so anyone using this inaccurate term is doing it for propaganda reasons.

Again, the reason the jury could not find that Trump raped Carroll, is because of the way the New York law was written.

The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere. The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

There was NO rape finding and NO rape conviction; rape is a criminal charge so anyone using this inaccurate term is doing it for propaganda reasons.

No, rape is an unlawful sexual activity done against a person's will. Criminal charges have nothing to do with the perpetration of the crime. There are many rapes committed that go unreported or with charges not being filed against the perpetrator, that doesn't mean that the rapes didn't happen.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm really having difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that people are trying to excuse him by saying 'it wasn't really rape'. Just imagine your mother, your daughter or your sister going through the same thing.

I wouldn't be responsible for my reaction if someone said 'Hey, your daughter wasn't actually raped. He just used his hand. And it's not a criminal conviction anyway'.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Again, the reason the jury could not find that Trump raped Carroll, is because of the way the New York law was written.

The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere. The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

No, rape is an unlawful sexual activity done against a person's will. Criminal charges have nothing to do with the perpetration of the crime. There are many rapes committed that go unreported or with charges not being filed against the perpetrator, that doesn't mean that the rapes didn't happen.

Again, Rape is a criminal charge. It is not a civil charge. I'm well aware of how criminal law operates.
This sexual assault case was civil.

In order to charge Trump, this law was changed in the following way, otherwise Carroll would have still been outside the window:

New York	N.Y. CVP 213-C; Adult Survivors Act (ASA)	Generally, 20 years from the date of the incident. Adult Survivors Act (ASA) gives a limited one-year window to file in 2023 for conduct from any year.	Yes, the statute of limitations does not run out until the victim reaches age 55.

 

[JosephZ]

Rape is a criminal charge. It is not a civil charge. I'm well aware of how criminal law operates.
This sexual assault case was civil.

Yes, I mentioned this several days ago when you said the jury didn't convict trump of rape.

It was a civil trial, so the jury wasn't able to convict Trump of anything.

While the jury wasn't able to convict Trump of anything because his trial was civil rather than criminal, it was able to find that Trump did in fact rape Carroll.

In order to charge Trump, this law was changed in the following way, otherwise Carroll would have still been outside the window:

The law wasn't changed so Carrol could file a case against Trump. The law was created to undo the injustice created by the short statute of limitations that failed to account for how long it takes survivors to process and overcome the trauma of sexual abuse.

 

[wing2000]

"The Best People"

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yes, I mentioned this several days ago when you said the jury didn't convict trump of rape.

While the jury wasn't able to convict Trump of anything because his trial was civil rather than criminal, it was able to find that Trump did in fact rape Carroll.


The law wasn't changed so Carrol could file a case against Trump. The law was created to undo the injustice created by the short statute of limitations that failed to account for how long it takes survivors to process and overcome the trauma of sexual abuse.

The jury did NOT convict Trump. It found him liable, which I already stated.

Let's just say the law was passed at a very convenient time. E. Jean Carroll, a writer for Elle magazine, Thursday filed an amended lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, minutes after New York’s Adult Survivor’s Act went into effect. She previously filed a defamation suit against Trump in 2019 for statements he made against her when she publicly accused him of sexual assault.

 

[Pommer]

The jury did NOT convict Trump. It found him liable, which I already stated.

Let's just say the law was passed at a very convenient time. E. Jean Carroll, a writer for Elle magazine, Thursday filed an amended lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, minutes after New York’s Adult Survivor’s Act went into effect. She previously filed a defamation suit against Trump in 2019 for statements he made against her when she publicly accused him of sexual assault.

I see “woman gets justice”, why’s that bad?

 

[Bradskii]

Former Attorney General, the Republican Alberto Gonzales, has now said he will be voting for Harris:

'As the United States approaches a critical election, I can’t sit quietly as Donald Trump – perhaps the most serious threat to the rule of law in a generation – eyes a return to the White House. For that reason, though I’m a Republican, I’ve decided to support Kamala Harris for president.

To be fair, I have spoken with Trump only once. I do not really know him. It is telling, however, that several senior officials who worked for him in the White House now refuse to support him, including his vice president, chief of staff, defense secretary and national security adviser. Their unwillingness to endorse their former boss is an indictment of his character at a level equal to his many, many criminal indictments.'

Republican attorney general for Bush says he will vote for Harris; candidates to make pitches in swing states – live

Alberto Gonzales announces he will vote for Harris; Donald Trump will campaign in Arizona while Kamala Harris goes to North Carolina

www.theguardian.com

How many more I wonder.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I see “woman gets justice”, why’s that bad?

She could have "gotten justice" in the past 30 years, especially closer to the event..but she waited until an election year when he is running. Totally coincidental.

 

[Quasiblogo]

So I should be impressed that 200 politicrats gave their opinion? If I cannot find 200 with an opposite opinion, then I'll be concerned. And even if not, the true barometer is what is going on at the street level, not how much high-level colleagues congratulate one another by signing onto a letter.

 

[Bradskii]

So I should be impressed that 200 politicrats gave their opinion?

The number of Republicans of standing, very many of whom actually worked for the guy, including chiefs of staff and even a former Vice President should make anyone pause for thought.

This is unparalled in US politics. You shouldn't be impressed. You should be concerned.

 

[Quasiblogo]

The number of Republicans of standing, very many of whom actually worked for the guy, including chiefs of staff and even a former Vice President should make anyone pause for thought.

This is unparalled in US politics. You shouldn't be impressed. You should be concerned.

Sure there’s equal time to point that out, along with the parallel of the several staffers that ran from VP Harris.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure there’s equal time to point that out, along with the parallel of the several staffers that ran from VP Harris.

If you think that some people who stopped working for Harris is in any way similar to the legion of senior Republicans who say that Trump is a danger to the country, then so be it.

 

[Quasiblogo]

If you think that some people who stopped working for Harris is in any way similar to the legion of senior Republicans who say that Trump is a danger to the country, then so be it.

As a contest of numbers, you're right. However, I think there is an equal if not greater trove of senior Republicans who back up Trump.

 

[wing2000]

I don't recall any elections over the last 50 years wherein former presidents, cabinet members and other prominent members of the party's nominee for president are not endorsing him. It's unprecedented.

The closest example I can think is Richard Nixon...and of course, that was a different scenario. In that case Nixon chose to resign rather than face a humilating impeachment conviction. Of course, that Republican party no longer exist in the US congress.

 

[Bradskii]

As a contest of numbers, you're right. However, I think there is an equal if not greater trove of senior Republicans who back up Trump.

Imagine someone having to make excuses for Harris by saying 'But hey, there are quite a few Democrats who support her'.

 

[Quasiblogo]

Imagine someone having to make excuses for Harris by saying 'But hey, there are quite a few Democrats who support her'.

Good point. It is a matter of policy in the long run

 

[rjs330]

The thing is, those former Republicans are joined by countless others incuding many that were part of Trump's administration. They are just the latest to come foward in this election cycle.

Stephanie Grisham who served multiple roles in the Trump administration, mostly in communications, the most recent being chief of staff to first lady Melania Trump has endorsed VP Harris.

Olivia Troye who served as the Homeland Security and Counterterrorism adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed VP Harris.

While not endorsing VP Harris, his own Vice President will not endorse him.

“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution. … Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” -- Former Vice president Mike Pence

The only living former Republican president, George W. Bush, will not support Trump.

"He failed at being the president when we needed him to be that.” -- Mick Mulvaney, former acting Chief of Staff under Trump

Some more recent endorsements from Republicans:

A dozen Republican White House lawyers who served in the administrations of then-Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in her race against GOP nominee former President Donald Trump.

"we urge all patriotic Republicans, former Republicans, conservative and center-right citizens, and independent voters to place love of country above party and ideology and join us in supporting Kamala Harris."

"Donald Trump’s own Vice President and multiple members of his Administration and White House Staff at the most senior levels – as well as former Republican nominees for President and Vice President – have already declined to endorse his reelection."

Those signing the letter pointed to what they called "the profound risks presented by his [Trump's] potential return to public office. Indeed, Trump’s own Attorney General and National Security Adviser have said unequivocally that Donald Trump is unfit for office, dangerous, and detached from reality."

The list includes Michael Luttig, the prominent right-of-center legal scholar and retired federal appeals court judge who previously served as assistant counsel to the president in the Reagan White House.

The list of signatories to the letter, besides Luttig, includes (in alphabetical order) John B. Bellinger III, Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the NSC under George W. Bush, Phillip D. Brady, Deputy Counsel to the President under Reagan, Benedict S. Cohen, Associate Counsel to the President under Reagan, Peter D. Keisler, Associate Counsel to the President under Reagan, and Robert M. Kruger, Associate Counsel to the President under Reagan.

Also included are John M. Mitnick, Associate Counsel to the President and Deputy Counsel, White House Homeland Security Council under George W. Bush, Alan Charles Raul, Associate Counsel to the President under Reagan and General Counsel, OMB under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Adviser to the NSC under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Peter J. Rusthoven, Associate Counsel to the President under Reagan, David B. Waller, Senior Associate Counsel to the President under Reagan, and Wendell L. Willkie II, Associate Counsel to the President under Reagan.

White House lawyers who advised Reagan, Bush endorse Harris over Trump in 2024 showdown

A dozen Republican White House lawyers who served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations are endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Trump.

www.foxnews.com

What some of the country's former top military leaders have to say about Trump:

“…the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.” -- Richard V. Spencer, USMC Captain and former Secretary of the Navy under Trump

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us." -- James Mattis, USMC General and Former Secretary of Defense under Trump

“I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country. And then, of course, I believe he has integrity and character issues as well.”-- Mark Esper, Lieutenant colonel US Army and Former Secretary of Defense under Trump

“We saw the absence of leadership, really anti-leadership, and what that can do to our country.” -- H. R. McMaster Lieutenant General US Army and National Security Advisor under Trump

“A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law. There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.” -- John Kelly, USMC General and Chief of Staff under Trump

"Donald Trump has demonstrated that he is wholly and dangerously unfit for Commander-in-Chief. He praises and emboldens our enemies that seek to weaken our country. He has denigrated our brave men and women in uniform,” -- Larry Ellis, Four Star General US Army and former Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command

"Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason under the sway of Mr Putin." -- Barry McCaffrey, Four Star General US Army

“I don’t think he tells the truth, I think he is [immoral]. What I would ask every American to do is ... stand in front of that mirror and say, what are we about? Am I really willing to throw away or ignore some of the things that people do that are — are pretty unacceptable normally just because they accomplish certain other things that we might like?" -- Stanley McChrystal, Four Star general US Army

“We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America – and we’re willing to die to protect it.” -- Mark Milley, General US Army and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump

Well thats it, I'm voting for Harris.

 

[JosephZ]

Seventeen Republicans who worked under former President Reagan endorsed Vice President Harris

In the endorsement, which cited Reagan’s “Time for Choosing” speech, the Republicans said they believe Reagan would have supported Harris’s presidential bid if he were alive today.

“While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the Administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket,” they wrote in a statement.

The former officials said they hope other Republicans will follow them in supporting Harris.

“It’s our hope that this letter will signal to other Republicans and former Republicans that supporting the Democratic ticket this year is the only path forward toward an America that is strong and viable for our children and grandchildren for years to come,” they wrote.

“The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery, and the choice must be Harris-Walz. The choice between truth and lies demands support for Harris-Walz,” the former officials wrote. “The choice between freedom and suppression of freedoms means support for Harris-Walz.”


Full Statement from Reagan Alumni

President Ronald Reagan famously spoke about a “Time for Choosing”. While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the Administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket.

The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery, and the choice must be Harris-Walz.

The choice between truth and lies demands support for Harris-Walz.

The choice between freedom and suppression of freedoms means support for Harris-Walz.

The choice between serving the people and serving the few leads us to support Harris-Walz.

We join our friends and colleagues from the George W. Bush White House, his Administration, and his campaigns, and those from the McCain and Romney campaigns in supporting Vice President Harris and Governor Walz.

Our votes in this election are less about supporting the Democratic Party and more about our resounding support for democracy.

It’s our hope that this letter will signal to other Republicans and former Republicans that supporting the Democratic ticket this year is the only path forward toward an America that is strong and viable for our children and grandchildren for years to come.