Hacker News Reader

Comment by update | Hacker News Reader

The author of this Wired piece:

> Trump has, of course, faced the leaks of his 1995 tax returns and a [1]damning video where he brags about sexual assault

The author links to an article with this headline: [1] "Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005"

!= "Trump brags about sexual assault" (implying guilt)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-havin...

I do not like the opinion/politicization going on in the article. There is no evidence of sexual assault in the tape the author links.

Makes me question the bias of this whole article...

View on HN

There is no evidence of sexual assault in the tape the author links.

The quotes from Trump state outright that he engages in sexual conduct with women, without obtaining consent from them to do so. Engaging in sexual conduct with someone without their consent is sexual assault.

It's sexual assault if they press charges and successfully convict the offender.

The US may have a lot of unsavory parts, but rule of law and presumption of innocence are not one of them. Perhaps the progressives can stop trying to undermine them in the name of unguided censorship (e.g. trying to censor "bro banter" by painting it as sexual assault)

Was it even a non-private conversation?

> The US may have a lot of unsavory parts, but rule of law and presumption of innocence are not one of them. Perhaps the progressives can stop trying to undermine them in the name of unguided censorship (e.g. trying to censor "bro banter" by painting it as sexual assault)

This is my point exactly. Yet somehow I've gotten 4 downvotes for stating so. To be fair, I was prepared to be downvoted for that comment. Anything remotely pro-trump here is downvoted to hell.

Ah, yes. The Progressive Conspiracy™ did this. It's 100% their fault that when someone brags about doing things which fit the definition of a crime, people who hear about it say "that sounds to me like he's guilty of that crime" and begin to persecute the poor, helpless, defenseless billionaire who said those things. If only we could get rid of those horrid Progressive™ attack dogs, the world would once again be safe for people to grab unsuspecting women by the pussy and brag about it, and then greatness would be restored to America.

"Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. 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."

How is that sexual assault?

You could imagine a man kissing you or grabbing your crotch without your permission. Maybe you have a different definition of sexual assault that differs from current US law.

He's literally bragging about sexual assault. Facts are facts. That's true whether or not there is evidence of his words being true.

> He's literally bragging about sexual assault

No, he literally is not.

"Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." != "I forcefully grab women by the vagina"

but I can see this is a losing battle.

> That's true whether or not there is evidence of his words being true.

Ah, the old "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" defense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com