Trump is a rapist.
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
215 points (96.9% liked)
Keep Track
619 readers
418 users here now
Keeping Track of the 2nd Trump administration!
One thing Donald Trump and the extreme right were very good at doing is burying the track record of his first presidency from 2017 to 2021.
Keep Track is dedicated to literally keeping track, day by day, of the policy decisions made by the new Trump Administration.
That is not to say we're interested in the crazy things he says or tweets, he clocked over 30,000 lies the last time he was in office, I don't see how it's possible to track all of that. This is about POLICY. Nominees, executive orders, signed laws, and so on.
Subject line format should be {{date}} {{event}} so: "01-20-2025 - Trump is sworn in."
The international date format of 2025-01-20 is also acceptable!
Links should be to verifiable news sources, not social media or blog sites. So no Xitter/Truth/Youtube/Substack/etc. etc.
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
all 37 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Diddy made a contribution? Or is it for gaetz?
Don’t forget Trump was good friends with Epstein and the both of “liked them young”.
Gotta protect Barron
As a foreigner not living in the US, it is amazing to me how left-right brained people in the US are.
It also requires live hearings and cross-examinations, and allows lawyers to be present at those hearings.
So now, having due process before an accusation ruins a persons life is a bad thing, because it came from Trump.
Absolutely no discourse about the policy itself, just Trump policy = bad.
live... Cross examinations
Of minors in a court setting. What better way to intimidate children into not coming forward than the idea of being put into a spectacle to relive your horror.
Yeah, imagine putting a 13-year-old girl on the stand, in front of reporters, judges, lawyers, potentially their rapist, and definitely their parents, and having them go blow-by-blow with a lawyer who's already adversarial in nature and out to catch them in a lie, or confuse them, and likely has been doing this work for years.
No, this couldn't possibly be a good reason for kids to shut the fuck up when a teacher or another kid molests them. Being a kid is already hard enough, going through a sexual assault is hard, so let's pile a huge media spectacle (that will likely make it onto everyone at school's social media feeds) on top of all that trauma AND force them to relive it in front of everyone for the express purpose of the defense lawyer trying to catch you in a gotcha.
Of minors in a court setting.
Hopefully, this is mostly about colleges. I really don't want to think that minors raping minors is a common issue in the US. ...Somehow, I am afraid to check now.
What better way to intimidate children into not coming forward than the idea of being put into a spectacle to relive your horror.
I am not saying it is ideal, but it is not an unmoderated spectacle either. There generally are protections for underage witnesses and witnesses in general even in courts, which this is not. Between that and just assuming a person is guilty, it is the lesser evil to have them testify.
In addition, the fact prosecutors repeatedly refused to prosecute for false accusations when those came to light clearly shows this policy was never done in good fate. Life destroying consequences for the accused with next to no recourse but no consequences for the accuser when they are caught lying is just ridiculous.
There’s no “hopefully” or benefit of the doubt for this guy. He has been proven to be a rapist in court.
Who? Trump? Are you literally incapable of forming two sentences without talking about him?
Hopefully, this is mostly about colleges
It is not.
Title IX rules for federally funded K-12 schools
You made me think for a moment it was only about K-12 since you left out the "and colleges" part.
Anyway, it is even shittier if they forced minors to face such serious accusations without a lawyer or other adequate representation.
Which would you rather have: more rapes, or more kids kicked out of school for false allegations?
If this is a hard question, then I hope you gain experiences that make it easier to decide. Learning is important.
Plus, the false allegation thing is kinda bunk. If it happens, then sue them for libel. Since there isn't a lot of that going on, I think it's less of an issue than, ya know, rape.
Anecdotally, I know four rape victims that didn't come forward. I know zero men who were falsely accused. I'm sure I'm not special in this regard.
Which would you rather have: more rapes, or more kids kicked out of school for false allegations?
It's a false dichotomy. There are other ways to prevent rape at schools without throwing away due process.
Plus, the false allegation thing is kinda bunk. If it happens, then sue them for libel. Since there isn't a lot of that going on, I think it's less of an issue than, ya know, rape.
Yes, because common students routinely have 10s of thousands of $ to pay for lawyers to probably not even get back the same amount.
Anecdotally, I know four rape victims that didn't come forward. I know zero men who were falsely accused. I'm sure I'm not special in this regard.
So you are saying throwing away due process did not even work to make them come forward in the first place, since this was repealed just now.
If there were other ways to prevent rape, they would be there already. So you're clearly wrong.
I agree we should provide free law services to people without money so they can get justice just like the rich people. Let's do that. And we can do that without endangering young girls.
There is no due process being thrown away. These people aren't going to jail. They're being kicked out of school. A school can kick out a child for literally anything that isn't a protected class. Rape allegations seems like a pretty good reason to kick someone out, especially compared to some other reasons people have been kicked out, like protesting.
If there were other ways to prevent rape, they would be there already. So you're clearly wrong.
Ah, my bad. I did not realize a good government healthcare is not possible because it is not already there.
Also a shame safer roads are impossible to build, otherwise they already would have. Or walkable cities. Mass transit.
Yeah, something good not already existing clearly means it is not possible. I will give up any attempt to improve anything at once. /s
There is no due process being thrown away. These people aren't going to jail.
Oh, my apologies. Did not know anything that does not put you in jail does not deserve due process. You must be so angry at Luigi and his fans since clearly rejecting insurance claims is also not putting you in jail and does not deserve any due process. It is just financial ruin, same as having student loans without a degree. Not an issue at all. /s
A school can kick out a child for literally anything that isn't a protected class.
Ah yes, the "things are already bad so we should make them worse" argument. Also, its not even really true.
Seriously, what the fuck are these arguments of yours? You can't possibly believe them yourself. Are you just trying to retroactively come up with arguments for a policy you just insist on believing because the guy who said it had (D) after their name? Just making up arguments for others, without actually using them to shape your own opinions?
Ok, so you agree there aren't things in place to prevent rape. Only that there could one day be. Great. Go do that. The lack of its current existence makes it irrelevant to the conversation. That's my point.
Due process is very very clearly a legal term. Private institutions aren't required to follow anything like it. You need to differentiate between what IS and what you wish were the case.
I don't care who made the rule. Fuck the Democrats. I care that women who are raped are being silenced. It's literally that simple.
requires live hearings
Now someone that's LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
allows lawyers to be present
Doesn't say requires here. So the rich kids get their "full" representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
Now someone that's LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from live hearings.
Doesn't say requires here.
Hey, I would also prefer if it did. It's not like I believe Trump actually cares for fairness. Probably just broken clock being right twice a day. These changes happen to make it better than it was, though not perfect by any means.
So the rich kids get their "full" representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. Most people can scrape enough money for a lawyer when their future depends on it and expensive lawyer, while giving rich kids an advantage, does not usually decide the outcome like they do in TV shows. Trials are about finding the truth.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
And here comes my original point. Being unable to discuss the policy on its merit rather than by who it was proposed by.
Trials are about finding the truth.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world.
My friend said it best when he brought up a point one day that “it’s scary to think that in court, it’s more about whoever can argue their case better that wins.” And I have to agree with him on that. (Not that it matters but he is a level-headed highly-educated doctor, not md but in biotech)
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
In that instance, getting by with an affordable lawyer would be better than none, but let’s not kid ourselves. Big corporations don’t shell out millions on attorneys to lose in court, so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you
Easy, I'll just remember the time that my director told me I was not allowed to discuss salary with coworkers. That is against federal law and workplace protections.
When I called the NLRB to report it, they basically said they could file the complaint and bring charges. They were honest but evasive regarding the chances of a complaint against a company this big going anywhere and as nice as they could be in telling me without telling me that whistleblower protections would not save my job.
And I'm not even in a marginalized group.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world
I don't disagree there but that is an extreme case rather then the common trial.
public court
It is not a public court. It is about the right to face the accuser and cross examine them (ask them questions). The only parties required to be present is the panel, the accuser, the accused and their lawyers if they have them.
so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
Yeah, I admitted as much in the first post. But large corporations routinely loose to small guys with cheap lawyers. The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence). Which again isn't perfect but better than any of the alternative.
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
Again, what is the alternative? Just fuck it, judge people based on vibes? The lives being ruined is not hypothetical, it happened multiple times.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them. But it was the opposite. Prosecutors refused to even apply the light penalties that exist for perjury.
The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence).
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
Yeah, liars should be punished. There is however irony in that statement considering the current president…
Again, what the fuck.
Me: US people are incapable about talking about the actual policy without just bringing up who proposed it.
You: BuT tHe CuRrEnt PrEsIdEnT.
I'm pretty sure you're already allowed a lawyer. Repeating you can have a lawyer twice doesn't add anything, unless you can show their right to a lawyer was somehow being bypassed. Do we have cases of that?
Kinda. You only have a recognized right to a lawyer in criminal proceedings.
This right was bypassed by forcing schools to have separate hearing regarding being expelled where you not only did not have a right to a lawyer, but often not even the right to confront witnesses or examine evidence.
So the right to a fair trial was bypassed by creating a new tribunal that could not send you to prison (therefore not triggering constitutional protections), but still completely fuck up your life since now you are expelled from your school, unable to get into another one and still probably settled with student loans.
Was there a case where someone tried to bring in a lawyer to one of those hearings and was turned away? At that point though, I'd expect it to go straight to litigation, so I'd say were they turned away and immediately expelled. I'd almost expect the hearing to end and lawsuits to start.
not sure if agent provocateur, or just stupid 🤔🤔🤔
I mean, you make my point for me. No argument why a right to have a lawyer present and defending yourself when you are accused of a crime is a bad thing.
Just down votes and insults.
Idk if you are incapable of understanding that it is possible to agree with some of Trumps policies while understanding he is a racist fascist rapist or if you genuinely don't see that removing due process and just assuming an accused person is guilty is more Fascist than anything Trump did so far.
On here, anything that Trump does right is bad cause Trump. No nuance in life, only black and white.
Of course it's horrible, but
It reduces the liability placed on schools in sexual misconduct cases. It also requires live hearings and cross-examinations, and allows lawyers to be present at those hearings.
The Biden administration extended sex discrimination protections under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Trump informed educational institutions that his administration would no longer enforce those protections.
The headline is clickbaitily (that's a word now) misleading.
Sure, let's have lawyers cross examine traumatized children. No way forcing them to go though that in a adversarial way could make the trauma worse or intimidate victims into silence.
Read what I wrote. Of course it's horrible.
The headline suggests that acts which are currently considered to be sexual assault are no longer going to be considered sexual assault. "Ease sex assault rules." Yes, the headline is "technically true," but it is purposely misleading.
Same as this one from the same source. "Trump Admin Emails Air Traffic Controllers: Quit Your Jobs". Yes, technically true, and still horrible, but it's the same email that all federal employees got. The administration didn't specially pick out ATC.
This is how propaganda works. Word things in such a way that they're true to a very careful reader, and whistle idly while most readers digest a misleading message.
I'm not bOtH sIdEsing this. A lot more propaganda has been put out by the fascists, for longer, and to a greater degree of falsehood. That doesn't make messages that you want to hear immune from being propagandized. These examples are small potatoes by comparison, sure, but if you want to make accurate judgments and [email protected] fascists effectively, do so on the basis of actual facts, and point out propagandizing when you see it.