| ▲ | nerevarthelame 17 hours ago |
| On top of the fraud convictions, Trevor Milton was credibly accused of sexual assault by his own cousin and a girl he employed. Both victims were minors at the time. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/two-women-file-sexual-abuse-... |
|
| ▲ | Weryj 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I guess we know how he managed to get the funding. |
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It was wiped away with a phone call. In March 2025, Trump called Milton to tell him he had signed an unconditional pardon. Milton had styled himself as a political victim of the Biden administration, and Trump agreed. Birds of a feather flock together. |
| |
| ▲ | PearlRiver 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Party of family values (just don't ask what goes on behind the front door). | |
| ▲ | cheema33 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Milton had styled himself as a political victim of the Biden administration, and Trump agreed. That and a $1 million donation. He bought his pardon fair and square. | |
| ▲ | chneu 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | dsr_ 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The average dog has slightly less than 4 legs; the modal dog has 4 legs. If you call a tail a leg, it's still not a leg, so no dogs have 5 legs. What the President believes is not, has not been, and cannot be the basis of law. If it were, the President would be a king. | | |
| ▲ | lo_zamoyski 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > What the President believes is not, has not been, and cannot be the basis of law. Yes, but... > If it were, the President would be a king. First, rape is an immoral act that the law does and should punish. It is a factually bad thing, regardless of whether a legal system recognizes it as such. Second, pace the legal positivists, the law is a determination of the moral law within particular circumstances. It is not arbitrary without becoming false. As the old legal maxim goes, lex iniusta non est lex: an unjust law is not a law. This means justice is presupposed by the positive law; the latter exists in the service of the former. Third, kings are not God. They are not the basis for the law in the sense that they can simply legislate anything they want. One reason I've already given: a valid law can only be a determination of the natural law; declaring dogs to have five legs is meaningless. Another reason is that kings were bound by tradition, custom, and various feudal contracts. In Europe, the Church also kept kings in check. In countries like Poland, the king increasingly became more "presidential" in the sense that the sovereign could not enact any laws without the consent of the nobility (per the Nihil Novi Act [0]). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_novi | |
| ▲ | lovich 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The line between president and king has stopped being neon bright and started to look blurry under this admin. |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've no doubt that he believes it is possible for his political enemies to commit it. | |
| ▲ | worksonmine 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | muwtyhg 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | You seem to be making an assumption on what comment the OP is referring to. Could you provide us the quote you think has "gone through many rounds of telephone"? | | |
| ▲ | worksonmine 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | lunchbucket 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, consent was assumed. He makes it very clear that he doesn't ask for consent. "I don't even wait." "You can do anything." We don't even need to speculate about what he meant; he assaulted E. Jean Carroll. This is open and shut. | |
| ▲ | evan_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Post the whole thing. > I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything. | |
| ▲ | ashtonshears 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Shame on you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | snvzz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | dyauspitr 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | doubletwoyou 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | False? No US state has an age of consent below 16 except in cases between minors (Romeo & Juliet laws), which this most certainly isn't? | | | |
| ▲ | mh2266 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | is the intended point here that it is okay to sexually abuse 16 year olds, so everything is fine—but 15 year olds are right out? or... what? | | |
| ▲ | Larrikin 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The intended point is to troll various forums with bots or shills to make the Epstein files seem less bad by saying it is ok for adults to have sex with children. | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. It’s the law. | | |
| ▲ | hacker161 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You are a pedophile | |
| ▲ | mmooss 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. That's not obvious to me. For example, would it be fine for a rich, powerful 40 year old to sleep with a 16 year old? Given the power inbalance, is consent really possible? > It’s the law. Lots of very not 'fine' things are legal. | | | |
| ▲ | mh2266 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ok, but it wasn't consensual? | | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then he should be in jail. Unless they mean it is statutory even though she gave consent (since she was 15 and underage). Then it would be consensual if she was 16. | | |
| ▲ | mh2266 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't understand the purpose of writing multiple comments about the age of consent on a thread that is unambiguously about sexual assault. It wouldn't matter if she was 40 years old! | | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point I’m trying to make is it’s called sexual assault automatically if the person is underage. Even if it was consensual. If it was a 40 year old it would just be called consensual sex. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | WTF. Sexual assault is not okay regardless of the age. I can't believe you are defending sexual assault. Edit: and in before the "I wasn't defending" No, you were. The "relax bro she was 16" attitude is the issue. Sick. | | |
| ▲ | thrance 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no mediocrity Republicans won't embrace. When their leader is revealed to be a pedophile, they start defending pedophilia. Haven't seen a single one turn on Trump over the Epstein files yet. |
| |
| ▲ | dmitrygr 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > She was 15, that’s older than the age of consent in a lot of US states. What are you smoking? The lowest age of consent in any US state is 16 |
|
|
| ▲ | poisonarena 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| devils advocate here... but isnt it weird how these women filed a complaint together 20 years later, after he became a billionaire? I just read the article and by his cousins own testimony, they were BOTH minors, and he heinously sexually assaulted her by groping her breasts after she consented to... take off her own shirt down to a bra, during a "massage"... but the shirts off massage turned into a sexual assault when he touched her breasts/removed her bra? He denies all of it, and it happened 20 years ago, and maybe he is a fraud, and maybe he is a creep, but there is no way to prove any of it. |
| |
| ▲ | defrost 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > isnt it weird how these women filed a complaint together 20 years later No. Not in the slightest. From work I once did, essentially IT support for a Royal Commission inquiry into sexual abuse and assault, it's extremely common for all manner of sexual assault victims to remain silent for many years. Regardless of the wealth of the alleged perpetrator(s). Eg: ~ 50 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cable#Sexual_abuse_claim... also, say, Rolf Harris, Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, and numerous other rock spiders. | | |
| ▲ | poisonarena 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ahhh I see you quoted, and responded to only the FIRST half of the sentence I wrote, totally ignoring what I was implying, and answering a question I didn't ask ! edit: comparing Jimmy Seville, and this 17 year old kid who touched his cousins tits during a consensual massage 20 years ago is a reach | | |
| ▲ | defrost 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Ahhh I see you quoted, and responded to only the FIRST half of the sentence I wrote, totally ignoring what I was implying Read more carefully, note well: " Regardless of the wealth of the alleged perpetrator(s)." > comparing Jimmy Seville, and this 17 year old kid who touched his cousins tits during a consensual massage 20 years ago is a reach No, they had a reach around. Moreover, I didn't compare them, I merely noted that large time gaps are common place. Again, please read carefully. | | |
| ▲ | poisonarena 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | reading very carefully, and you are literally comparing him to those cases. This is the definition of a comparison (at least until you edit your comments again) In any case I dont give a shit about this mormon weirdo, whether he did it or not, and I have already wasted too much of my precious life thinking about this | | |
| ▲ | defrost 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Again, it is commonplace for both men and women to not publicly report sexual assault in their teen and preteen years for decades. Regardless of the wealth of the alleged perpetrator(s). | | |
| ▲ | poisonarena 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wish you success, because im thinking about suing you in 20 years for the emotional damage endured from making me read all these comments | | |
| |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I feel like you're missing the point, and the answer to your question: > isnt it weird how these women filed a complaint together 20 years later, after he became a billionaire? No. Multiple people are now informing you that this is not weird. I'm assuming good faith that this was a genuine question, and you now have your answer to it: "No." | | |
| ▲ | poisonarena 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | on the contrary, both of you missed my original point, which is that i doubt it happened the way they say it did, because I think they want a taste of the hundreds of millions of dollars he has. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > both of you missed my original point, Nope. No one missed you implying it was solely about the money. Again, a vast number of sexual assaults are either never reported or not reported for many many years. Regardless of the money. | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > i doubt it happened the way they say it did You are free to doubt whatever you want regarding the rich convicted criminal and liar we're discussing, just like any of the other 8 billion random individuals on the planet can doubt whatever, but the point you missed is that the answer to your question and original point: > isnt it weird how these women filed a complaint together 20 years later, after he became a billionaire? Is "No." Thank you for asking your good-faith question, you now have heard the correct answer from multiple people and are more educated on the serious matter of sexual assault. Hopefully your previous incorrect assumption of "Yes" did not cloud your judgement on the matter. P.S.: if you ever find yourself saying something along the lines of "both of you missed my original point", chances are the communication problem (and the point-missing) lies with you, rather than everyone else participating in the thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
