Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Jennifer Murphy?

The Advocate ran an article, based on a series of tweets attributed to Judd Legum. He listed 14 names. 13 were present on Wikipedia. The missing one was Jennifer Murphy.

Jennifer Murphy. Apprentice contestant says Trump kissed her on the lips after a job interview in 2005. — Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 9, 2017

I've read a few articles on her reaction to the event. I don't know much about sexual assault or the standard for this page, but I thought it should be discussed on the talk page.

Mdnahas (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Haven't looked too deep, but my first two Google hits are headlined "Trump Kissed Her—But It's Okay" and "Trump kissed me, I wasn't offended". Sounds like she is not making an allegation of sexual misconduct. I don't think a welcome kiss clears the bar. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits about Jane Doe and further series of edits

The lead says: “Three of those women filed lawsuits, which were eventually settled or withdrawn, alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump.” This refers to Ivana Trump, Jill Harth, and a Jane Doe case that was dropped. That last item was the subject of an RFC at this talk page which resulted in exclusion of the info from this page.[1] I will rephrase the lead accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done along with some other edits to this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

100% neutral heading, read on for details

I have reverted a string of edits [2] that insinuate that various statements concerning allegations of harassment are untrue. Any such edits should be proposed one by one here on talk so that policy-based consensus can be determined. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please give me at least one example. I am not going to debate with you whether dead urls should be fixed. Editing policy says “Preserve appropriate content.“ You have violated this policy by removing content that is very clearly appropriate, on the basis that other content is inappropriate, while keeping secret what that other content is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support fixing dead URLs. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support following policy which says to preserve appropriate content. This was an indiscriminate revert, and it would be 100% absurd to have a survey about every trivial edit. See WP:Editing policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you try one small edit and see if it stands. If not, come here and discuss it. Rinse. Repeat. This approach will make it easier to see if anybody is being obstructionist or disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I waited for more than six hours before continuing with these recent edits. You think I should have waited for more than six hours between each of them? It would take weeks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Suggestions? You can see my talk for a little more context. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mixed into the fog of little tinkers and tidbits are egregious POV spins of language that cast undue unsourced doubt on women who state that they have been harassed. Repeatedly reinserting these and quick-draw editing, effectively preventing participation by editors less frequent and constantly watching than yourself, is not OK. And restoring this brand new POV language on the premise that it's preserving content? Makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This page has 123 watchers. Give it 2-3 days and you'll get a broader representation of the reaction to these edits. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Still not one example of inappropriate content, no acknowledgment that some of the removed edits were appropriate beyond “tinkers and tidbits”, no acknowledgment that I posted at this talk page before editing, no acknowledgment that I paused for more than six hours in the middle of editing to allow input, and no acknowledgment that WP:Editing policy bars indiscriminate reverts that remove appropriate content. What is the language that you claim is POV? You want to defy the RFC mentioned at the top of this immediately-preceding talk page section by having the lead refer to the Jane Doe suit? Apparently so. You want the section on litigation to exclude the Zervos litigation? Apparently so. If not, then what is your objection, and why won’t you follow the editing policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Saying Ivana "recanted" without saying this was in the context of settlement of her divorce action? There's an example. My undo was not about your RfC. Patience is a virtue. 3 days from now, we will know what others think. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course it was in the context of divorce: “Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim”. How does that omit context? The divorce was in 1989, she recanted in 1993, and again in 2016. The proposed language is as factual as it gets. Readers can also go look at the top picture caption if they want, plus there’s a whole subsection about it. There was a gag order that was part of the divorce settlement, but gag orders do not require people to affirmatively say anything such as “he never raped me”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well then why not say she recanted the allegation pursuant to a settlement agreement of their litigation. [3] and many other sources. That's just what popped up. Gotta hop now. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in the December 1990 settlement agreement apparently required her to recant the allegation three years later, in 1993, or to say in 2015 that the allegation was “without merit”. That New Yorker article by Jane Mayer doesn’t say otherwise, but merely quotes a supposition by a book author named Hurt: “Hurt said that he considers the note [by Ivana in 1993] a non-denial denial, and believes that Ivana agreed to amend her words in order to secure the divorce settlement, in which she reportedly received fourteen million dollars in cash.” Maybe she also said in 2015 that the charges were without merit because she had a financial incentive then too. We don’t know. What we do know is that her recantations in 1993 and 2015 were both years after the divorce was granted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Aside from little tinkers and tidbits, are every single one of the edits that were removed in this edit POV violations, including (1) moving the Zervos material into the litigation section, (2) the removal from the lead of the material related to the Jane Doe lawsuit discussed at the beginning of this the immediately-preceding talk page section, (3) inclusion of a denial by Trump in the lead paragraph, (4) inline attribution of a quote to an opinion piece by Kristof, (5) mentioning Trump’s apology in the lead, (6) expanding the Trump quote about going backstage for context, (7) including Stern’s imitation of a contestant for context, and (8) including this quote for NPOV: “Most of the former contestants were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, they were not all POV violations. (In fact, none of them were, and no reason to the contrary has been offered.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with many of the changes, particular to paragraphs two and three of the lede. The WP:LEAD must summarize the article and leaning one way or the other is a violation. Several of these allegations preceded Trump's candidacy for president... Then how come our article only describes two and not "several"? Anythingyouwant's version is more exactly and less NPOV. The inclusion of "three lawsuits" is in direct violation of the "Jane Doe" RfC even if we don't mention her explicitly. Adding denials and details of witnesses with conflicting accounts is also closer to WP:NPOV, we must keep WP:DUE weight in mind.LM2000 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Anythingyouwant's changes were a vast improvement. The lead should reflect the body, yet this article's lead alludes to a third lawsuit (the "Jane Doe" hoax) that goes unmentioned in the body, while avoiding any summary of the relevant litigation. Consider the difference:
  • Current lead: "Three of those women filed lawsuits, which were eventually settled or withdrawn, alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Trump. Additionally one accuser filed a defamation lawsuit in 2017 after Trump called her a liar."
  • Anythingyouwant's revision: "Those accusations resulted in the following widely-reported litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract and nonviolent sexual harassment and the latter suit was withdrawn when the former was settled; and, in 2017, former game show contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump called her a liar."
• SPECIFICO has argued that these basic, uncontroversial facts undermine the credibility of Ivana and Harth's allegations, but—whether she is right about that or not—she has it backwards: The lead is supposed to summarize the body, including all of the essential facts; censoring relevant information to push a given narrative is anathema to Wikipedia policy, particularly in a WP:BLP. In any case, we are literally bound by long-standing consensus and a formal RfC to avoid discussing the "Jane Doe" lawsuit, so eliminating it from the lead should be an urgent priority. Furtheremore, as I have noted previously, Wikipedia's summary of the "Miss Teen USA" allegations diverges dramatically from the sources, which do in fact explicitly state: "Most of the former contestants were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy"; in past discussions on this talk page, I was told that exculpatory material should not be included because this article is devoted entirely to the accusations against Trump (e.g., here and here). Unfortunately, editors can and do abuse the "do not restore challenged edits" discretionary sanction to effectively override RfC consensus and cherrypick the content from sources. SPECIFICO, who has done this systematically across numerous articles, knows what she is doing—as does everyone else familiar with her Wikipedia history. (To give just one example, it is solely due to SPECIFICO's personal biases that Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information includes Erick Erickson but not Vladimir Putin: [4], [5], [6].)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No heading provided 2

..the Zervos allegation is a year ago and no follow-up has been made. Who is preventing the President clearing it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.66.170 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No heading provided 1

..the 13 year old girl needs to be in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD95:45F0:29DD:7A9D:C5DF:8A4B (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Boyne allegations

There is a discussion in the archive saying credible sources were needed. How about this one:

Reilly, Mollie; Stein, Sam (October 13, 2016). "Trump Faces Another Accusation — This Time, He Looked Up Models' Skirts. One woman said he gawked at their underwear or lack thereof". Huffington Post. Retrieved December 7, 2017.

deisenbe (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Heck of a good reference for this article.

Complete list of all allegations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/22/president-trump-and-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct-the-complete-list/

Casprings (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Paywall to a tabloid level political rag? Batvette (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Somebody has to say it, so I guess I will: the Washington Post is not a tabloid and it’s not a political rag. It’s one of our leading newspapers. deisenbe (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Attorney Lisa Bloom's involvement

This article should include the now extremely relevant information coming to light about attorney Lisa Bloom's role in offering payment to women who agreed to come forward with sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump. This is not meant to discredit anyones allegations, but it's highly relevant considering she is a high profile attorney that bribed accusers, and that she did it in the months leading up to the 2016 US Presidential election. Sources:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/15/attorney-lisa-bloom-sought-to-line-up-paydays-for-women-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-report.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lisa-bloom-trump-accusers-paid-article-1.3701922 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4600:6CFE:6C2E:A313:F30C:4428 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

More about money, particularly David Brock's involvement from New York Times. Not sure where this stuff should be included, if at all. A new section on Jill Harth's friend might be needed. She was going to come forward to bolster Harth's story; she asked for $2 million, was offered $750,000, butnever came forward until her story ended up in The Hill.LM2000 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bannon raises the accusation of rape of a 13-year-old girl

Two RS...

Steve Bannon raises sexual misconduct claims against Donald Trump involving 13-year-old girl. He stepped down as White House chief strategist in August.

He criticised Ivanka over how she handled the US Senate election in Alabama in which Roy Moore, whom Bannon backed, lost following accusations of sexual misconduct with teenagers. Ivanka said during the campaign: "there is a special place in hell for people who prey on children".

"Bannon told the magazine: "What about the allegations about her dad and that 13-year-old?" –referring to a claim by a woman in California who had filed a suit alleging that Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein had raped her in 1994, when she was an aspiring model. The charge was unproven and later dropped. Trump denies the many claims of sexual misconduct against him."

This is an old charge, but when we have Bannon raising the issue, it's more than just National Enquirer stuff. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

See massive RfC here. It was more than just National Enquirer stuff then. If you want to run another RfC, I can't stop you, although I (and I suspect many others) would strongly object to a rehash on the basis of one Bannon comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Rape Lawsuit of a Minor in 1994

All the affidavits and sworn statements by two witnesses can be found at the public Scribd page below. Concerning the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl in 1994 by the defendants Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. This is arguably the most serious allegation of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump and should be listed under a separate subtitle.

An electronic summons has been issued by Judge Abrams for both Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein to appear in a Manhattan court for a hearing December 16th, 2016, when the plaintiff suddenly withdrew. Arguably a typical pattern in a pre-litigation settlement of a sexual abuse case with with a gag order.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits Verificity (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Related RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Burnett's friend

Unless attempting a kiss "almost on lips" without asking first is now considered sexual misconduct, the only misconduct alleged at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Erin Burnett's unnamed friend (2010) is marital misconduct, and that content is even more out of place in this article than Stormy-Stephanie Daniels-Clifford. The latter was at least sexual, allegedly. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done - [7] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephanie Clifford

- this is hardly an abuse, but bribing someone to stay quiet is definitely a "misconduct". Should this be included on the page? My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That particular story is starting to look like fake news. With everyone on all sides including Clifford denying it. [8]and [9] PackMecEng (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course she denies it. But I would rather not unilaterally include this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It may be real but I don't think it belongs here. The covering up of a consensual affair is a bit different from the allegations here. Little about Gennifer Flowers is on the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations article, for good reason.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

ZeroHedge is not a RS, but of course we could use the dubious right-wing GOP apology site Fox to document the denial. The content is based on very RS and is certainly within the scope of this article. The story was broken by the conservative, right-wing, Wall Street Journal, and has been covered by numerous RS. I see no policy-based reasons for excluding it. Other stuff is a false argument. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored a much improved version. It's properly sourced, NPOV, and conforms to BLP. Now respect WP:PRESERVE by improvement, but not deletion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think sourcing is the issue, it's that this would have been a consensual affair and this article is about sexual misconduct.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Adultery and bribery/hush money are misconduct, especially repugnant when the alleged affair occurred while Melania was at home pregnant or with their new baby. It's a sexual misconduct scandal, and a scandal certainly qualifies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that, and it was covered in multiple RS. The only question is how this and possibly other similar materials should be included on WP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I feel too passionately about inclusion of this one either way but I don't think it meshes well with the other allegations in this article. His extramarital affairs have been well documented over the years, if we start documenting them I fear it will distract from the reason this article was created in the first place.LM2000 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with LM2000. This is out of this article's scope—the article is not meant to include any alleged misconduct that has a small consensual sex element. The main offenses alleged are the hush money and the cheating, in that order, not that he had sex with a porn star (which is completely legal). PRESERVE is not meant to protect disputed content added without consensus. I'm removing the content and it should not be re-added in any form without talk page consensus per the ArbCom remedies in effect on this page. If there is not enough participation to reach a consensus to include (3–2 would not be a consensus for something this contentious, in my opinion), go to RfC. I'll advertise at Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems like "misconduct about sex allegation", not "sexual misconduct allegation" - so oppose inclusion in this article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Came here after seeing the link at Talk:Donald Trump. My view is that the Stephanie Clifford affair/"hush money" has no business being in this article. It is absolutely not "sexual misconduct" at all. Some people view having affairs and trying to keep them a secret as morally questionable, and certainly doing so disqualifies an individual from being able to lecture others on their morality; nevertheless, it is a perfectly normal behavior that should not be described as "misconduct" by Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, paying money to keep someone silent and hide your behavior from electorate is not "a perfectly normal behavior" by any reasonable standards, and it's not WP, but RS describe this as misconduct. If that was a normal behavior, he would have no reason to pay money for hiding it.My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I don't think paying "hush money" is misconduct either. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@LM2000. You tell: "His extramarital affairs have been well documented over the years". Where this appears on WP pages? I am not sufficiently familiar with US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This comes down to where to have this content, per our job to document the "sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo) as reported in RS. It's now in the Stormy Daniels article, where it certainly belongs, but since it involves Trump and a political cover-up/hush money, it needs to be somewhere in one of his political articles. It seems logical to include it here, rather than having a separate article documenting his history of adultery. We should just expand the scope. Maybe we can have a much shorter mention? Not mentioning it is not a legitimate option.

Whenever we edit here, we must remember that one of our jobs is to place more weight on including content than on excluding it. Tweaking the inclusion criteria of an existing article is sometimes the easiest way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I would certainly support that. It seems that adultery is not generally considered in English a "sexual misconduct", but paying hash money does make it a misconduct. I think that briefly noticing such affairs on various pages is required by WP:NPOV if they receive significant coverage in RS (such as that one). My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for your "sum total of human knowledge" argument. Please stop asserting a general, vague, unexplained philosophical Jimbocomment as having any weight in these decisions. Similarly I would like to see policy support for "one of our jobs is to place more weight on including content than on excluding it"; absent that it's nothing more than one editor's view of what Wikipedia should be. In contrast, there is plenty of policy basis for "not mentioning it", and we decide every day to omit things reported in RS, for any of a multitude of policy-based reasons. I oppose any content in this article for the reasons already stated, and what to do at other articles is not a matter for discussion on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer and My very best wishes: Neither extramarital affairs, nor attempting to cover them up with "hush money", are "misconduct". Until there is enough material to support Personal life of Donald Trump, the only appropriate place to put this stuff is "family and personal life" of the main BLP. Trying to put the matter in this article would actually be a WP:BLPVIO, because it would be alleging "misconduct" where none legally exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Legality does not matter. It only matters what sources tell. They make connection with "sexual misconduct" (see here): Trump has denied several allegations of sexual misconduct in the past, and spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in 2016 that it was “absolutely, unequivocally” untrue that Clifford had a relationship with Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Very true. Misconduct doesn't have to be a legal matter, but is related to societal norms, which then affect vulnerability to blackmail. (I suspect that there are still some US states where it's still illegal.) It is societal standards which determine "misconduct", and in American society, and most others, adultery is considered wrong, even if it's not illegal. That's why the need for "hush money", otherwise it was (assumably) some of the most expensive sex he's ever paid for.

Such (hidden) affairs also expose him to blackmail, and why it's an especially serious matter for a politician. We don't want to elect blackmailable politicians! Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinski made him vulnerable, and he paid the price. It was the "hidden" nature that got him, because he lied about it.

Trump's alleged hidden affairs, especially the alleged multiple ones alleged in Saint Petersburg and Moscow, have been described as "blackmailable" offenses by paying bribes and engaging in sexual activities in Russia, which all make him currently peculiarly vulnerable.

That ties into the allegations that he is actually being blackmailed right now, IOW, that the Kremlin has enough "embarrassing material" on Trump "to be able to blackmail him if they so wished", but it has "promised not to use" it "as leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team". -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. People in the US who think he is going to impose serious sanctions on Russia will be disappointed. But most of this content probably belong to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: The NY Daily News article you linked to does NOT label the affair OR the payoff as "misconduct", or even "alleged" misconduct. Unless you can find cast iron sources that explicitly do this, it would be a BLP violation to add it to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, "sexual misconduct" or even "alleged sexual misconduct". This is not the Bad stuff Donald Trump has been accused of article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This source and all other sources discuss the episode in connection with the "sexual misconduct allegations". Hence I do not see any reason why we can't do it here. This is something nearly all RS on the subject do. Therefore, this is not a WP:SYN. We simply say what RS say. Why can't we simply follow the sources? My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

We should be, and the sources do not use that language. It just does not fit the scope of this article. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If sources choose to discuss sexual misconduct allegations and other misconduct allegations in the same articles (that is disputed in the preceding comment, but it's beside my point), that doesn't mean we have to. Our topic divisions do not have to agree with theirs and very often do not. If you seek to change the title and scope of this article, the mechanism for that is RfC. But the title and scope need to remain in agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about different allegations simply being included in the same articles. All RS treat this case and his sexual misconduct allegations as something closely connected, something that needs to be discussed together (that is what these sources do). I am not sure why you are so much against including this, but whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles that discuss Trump's actual misconduct discuss many other things, but they are also outside of the scope of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You missed the point. This is not "another thing", but something closely related to the subject per multiple RS. For example, it is entirely appropriate to mention peptides in a page about proteins. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "miss" your point. Your point was wrong. "Closely related" is not supported by a single reliable source. This article is about sexual misconduct, and neither having an affair, nor paying an inducement to keep it quiet, are examples of sexual misconduct, and no reliable sources suggest otherwise. Repeatedly stating such misinterpretations will not make it so. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, you just provided the best evidence of misconduct, the actions and guilty conscience of the perpetrator: "paying an inducement to keep it quiet". If it wasn't misconduct, why hide it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Knowledge of the affair would provide ammunition to his opponents, as well as being personally awkward. But trying to hide it still isn't a form of misconduct, and there are no sources supporting the notion that it is. This is the wrong article. It should be in the main BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? What world do you live in? Morally, ethically, in some places legally, and by most standards of decency, it's considered very bad behavior (misconduct). Maybe you're using a different definition of the word than the rest of us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to extend the meaning of "misconduct" to include nebulous examples of personal moral and ethical behaviors, as you seem to be doing, then you are going way beyond the meaning of the word as Wikipedia sees it. Some religious (or seriously uptight) people might argue that these things are "misconduct", but Wikipedia doesn't and US law doesn't. I will agree that these revelations are salacious, but not misconduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am just noting the current societal norms in the United States. Even in Hollywood, adultery is often cause for divorce. Even libertines, bless their souls, know that the rest of society doesn't approve of their behavior. As noted above, you provided the best evidence of misconduct, the actions and guilty conscience of the perpetrator led them to pay "an inducement to keep it quiet". If it wasn't misconduct, why hide it? That's why it's a blackmailable affair, and hence the desire to keep it quiet.

Even Putin treats Trump's alleged sexual affairs in Russia that way. The Trump–Russia dossier alleges that Trump was compromised with the blackmailable offenses of paying bribes and engaging in sexual activities in Russia. According to the dossier, as noted by multiple RS, the blackmail threat is active and conditionally mitigated by continued cooperation from Trump's side: Alleged, that the Kremlin has enough "embarrassing material" on Trump "to be able to blackmail him if they so wished", but it has "promised not to use" it "as leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation forthcoming from his team". That indicates that the alleged blackmail is active and working to Putin's advantage. Now you know why such affairs are indeed "misconduct" and are hidden. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is madness. Having an affair is not misconduct. Trying to keep it quiet is not misconduct, because everyone tries to keep an affair quiet. By your ridiculous rationale, half the population would be guilty of misconduct. And while it is true that any form of concealment can lead to the possibility of blackmail, there is no evidence that took place and it would be the blackmailer who was guilty of misconduct, not the person being blackmailed. For the last time, this is about moral conduct, not mis-conduct, and as such it is outside the scope of this article, and better suited to the main BLP. I refuse to argue with you more about this, and judging by the comments of other editors here there is no consensus for inclusion. If you still want to push it, begin a neutrally-worded RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but all RS in this edit consider them to be very closely related, even appearing in the same phrase ("Trump has denied several allegations of sexual misconduct in the past, and spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in 2016 that it was “absolutely, unequivocally” untrue that Clifford had a relationship with Trump"), and they are related based on any reasonable understanding of the subject. It is indeed like someone strenuously arguing that nothing about peptides should be included on a page about proteins. Yes, striktly speaking, peptides and proteins are not the same. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you really think those quotes legitimize your case, you must have some problem with reading comprehension. Your arguments are neither policy-based, nor sense-based, so I'm not wasting more time with you on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - not an allegation re Sexual misconduct " sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and any conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent". So it's WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point looks like it is wrapping up. Myself, LM2000, Mandruss, Galobtter, Markbassett, and Scjessey do not believe it belongs while My very best wishes and BullRangifer think it should. Unless an RFC is formed for wider community input, we will leave it out for now. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The first list omits Markbassett, not that it matters (except maybe to Markbassett :). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Must of missed them, my mistake! I will add them. PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps just a "See also" link to Stormy Daniels#Alleged affair with Donald Trump would suffice? ^Falling_Gravity 05:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate on this, a link in the "See also" does not mean that the alleged affair was not consensual. It's supposed to give readers more insight into what else has been reported on about Trump's sex life, and the events of October 2016, when most of these allegations were coming out. ^Falling_Gravity 08:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am also doubtful that the conduct alleged here rises to the level of sexual misconduct. As noted above, allegedly consensual affairs are not included in the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations article. This would require a separate article along the lines of Donald Trump adultery allegations or Donald Trump bribery allegations. bd2412 T 00:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not true: "In addition to the three allegations of sexual misconduct, many other women claim to have had consensual adulterous liaisons with Clinton...." -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Wow. And somebodies were running around crying about how "Wikipedia has a liberal bias". The conversation above pretty much proves that the opposite is the case. This is textbook whitewashing and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT - a prominent, notable and very important story is being excluded because... ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephanie Clifford again

Attached to existing discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

...the article doesn't even mention Stormy Daniels. Come on! Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

See above conversation Clifford is Daniels...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a hush in the air, but the outlook is stormy...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Jane Doe versus Donald Trump

   Why isn`t the case regarding the 13 year old girl that he allegedly raped in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:10C2:4A98:E6AF:DBD5 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC) 

Archived RFC dismissed NYT coverage in dismissing key allegation

Where is Lisa Bloom's work ? Concomitant with an absence from this page, there are clearly threats and organized defense against the more serious allegations of underage sexual abuse. Not taking these seriously enough to include on a mere "allegations" page is obvious deference to the stakeholders' influence in the game. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/us/politics/sexual-harassment-politics-partisanship.html We see removal of the Edit-talk RFC on grounds that this case is merely an election related fight, which is false and the case deserves its posterity. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations/Archive_6#RfC_Closure_for_Jane_Doe_discussion This is without animosity towards the tenured editors who did their job for the page, but to whom lobbying may have been imperceptible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4878:A045:3000:B1DA:838C:306:BFFC (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Katie Johnson case

I'm not a regular Wiki editor so I can't add a section on this, but shouldn't the allegations of Katie Johnson be included on this page? The case was dropped under strange circumstances. There are lots of sources online:

https://www.mondialisation.ca/katie-johnson-v-donald-j-trump-and-jeffrey-e-epstein-trump-child-rape-claim-for-100-million-denied-by-trump-attorney/5534676

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/04/donald-trump-teenage-rape-accusations-lawsuit-dropped

84.19.39.186 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Jane Doe case

See RfC: Jane Doe content from 2016. soibangla (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(main article was locked by Coffee on 12-Dec-2017 WP:ECP which suppresses the following factual information) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RatatoskK (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(requesting consensus to publish under WP:ARBAPDS) RatatoskK (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

“Jane Doe” (pseudonym) filed a federal lawsuit in 2016 alleging that Donald J. Trump raped her in 1994 when she was 13 years old. "Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein: Complaint for Rape, Sexual Misconduct, Criminal Sexual Acts, Sexual Abuse, Forcible Touching, Assault, Battery, Intentional and Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress, Duress, False Imprisonment, and Defamation". Scribd. June 20, 2016. Retrieved October 21, 2018. The lawsuit was originally filed in April 2016 under the name “Katie Johnson” without the assistance of an attorney Martosko, David; Parry, Ryan; Parry, Hannah (April 28, 2016). "Trump lawyer calls 'rape' lawsuit a hoax and says there's no proof accuser exists". Daily Mail. Retrieved October 21, 2018., and refiled in federal court in September 2016 against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

On October 7, 2016, Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered a December 16th status conference hearing, asking both sides to provide information that could assist the court in advancing the case to settlement or trial. Pilkington, Ed (October 12, 2016). "Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old". The Guardian. Retrieved October 21, 2018. On November 4, shortly before the presidential election, Jane Doe dropped the case Yuhas, Alan (November 5, 2016). "Woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at 13 drops lawsuit". The Guardian. Retrieved October 21, 2018..

In her affidavit, Jane Doe says that as a 13-year-old, she was enticed to attend parties at the home of Jeffrey Epstein with the promise of money modeling jobs. She said that Mr. Trump initiated sexual contact with her on four occasions in 1994. On the fourth incident, she says Mr. Trump tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her, in a “savage sexual attack,” while she pleaded with him to stop. She says Mr. Trump violently struck her in the face. She says that afterward, if she ever revealed what he had done, Mr. Trump threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed.” "Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein: Jane Doe Declaration". Scribd. June 18, 2016. Retrieved October 21, 2018.

In her affidavit, “Tiffany Doe” (pseudonym), Epstein’s party planner from 1991-2000, says that her duties were to attract adolescent women to attend these parties. Tiffany Doe says that she recruited Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr. Epstein’s parties, and witnessed the sexual assaults on Jane Doe. "Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein: Tiffany Doe Declaration". Scribd. June 18, 2016. Retrieved October 21, 2018. RatatoskK (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC) RatatoskK (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be useful if someone could provide a link in the header to the RFC on this topic, along the lines of a FAQ for why we don't include the "Jane Doe" case. bd2412 T 18:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add the above paragraphs to the section titled "Accusations filed in court against Trump," but I am having difficulty understanding the process for unlocking this article. It is currently WP:ARBAPDS and I think that means I can get consensus on the talk page and do not need an RfC. Th RfC listed at the beginning of this section is from 2 years ago and is closed. How do I get consent so that I can add this section to the article? This is factual information that is in the public interest. RatatoskK (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

While there's no hard-and-fast rule, I think most experienced editors would agree that

(1) An RfC would be needed to supersede the 2016 RfC, simply because that's the only way to attract a similar level of participation. This article doesn't have near the attention it did two years ago, and a handful of editors shouldn't be able to override the judgment of, what, 20 or 30?

(2) Nothing in the Jane Doe area has changed enough since 2016 to justify another RfC. We don't get to keep resurrecting an issue until we get the answer we want.

None of this has anything to do with ARBAPDS. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Please add the following four paragraphs to the section "Accusations filed in court against Trump."

“Jane Doe” (pseudonym) filed a federal lawsuit in 2016 alleging that Donald J. Trump raped her in 1994 when she was 13 years old. "Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein: Complaint for Rape, Sexual Misconduct, Criminal Sexual Acts, Sexual Abuse, Forcible Touching, Assault, Battery, Intentional and Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress, Duress, False Imprisonment, and Defamation". Scribd. June 20, 2016. Retrieved October 21, 2018. The lawsuit was originally filed in April 2016 under the name “Katie Johnson” without the assistance of an attorney Martosko, David; Parry, Ryan; Parry, Hannah (April 28, 2016). "Trump lawyer calls 'rape' lawsuit a hoax and says there's no proof accuser exists". Daily Mail. Retrieved October 21, 2018., and refiled in federal court in September 2016 against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

On October 7, 2016, Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered a December 16th status conference hearing, asking both sides to provide information that could assist the court in advancing the case to settlement or trial. Pilkington, Ed (October 12, 2016). "Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old". The Guardian. Retrieved October 21, 2018. On November 4, shortly before the presidential election, Jane Doe dropped the case Yuhas, Alan (November 5, 2016). "Woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at 13 drops lawsuit". The Guardian. Retrieved October 21, 2018..

In her affidavit, Jane Doe says that as a 13-year-old, she was enticed to attend parties at the home of Jeffrey Epstein with the promise of money modeling jobs. She said that Mr. Trump initiated sexual contact with her on four occasions in 1994. On the fourth incident, she says Mr. Trump tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her, in a “savage sexual attack,” while she pleaded with him to stop. She says Mr. Trump violently struck her in the face. She says that afterward, if she ever revealed what he had done, Mr. Trump threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed.” "Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein: Jane Doe Declaration". Scribd. June 18, 2016. Retrieved October 21, 2018.

In her affidavit, “Tiffany Doe” (pseudonym), Epstein’s party planner from 1991-2000, says that her duties were to attract adolescent women to attend these parties. Tiffany Doe says that she recruited Jane Doe at the Port Authority in New York, persuaded her to attend Mr. Epstein’s parties, and witnessed the sexual assaults on Jane Doe. "Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein: Tiffany Doe Declaration". Scribd. June 18, 2016. Retrieved October 21, 2018. RatatoskK (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia:Edit requests: "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial." This change would be "likely to be controversial" even without the comments in the preceding section. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Alva Johnson section

I have added a section on Alva Johnson's recent lawsuit and created a redirect to her section of the article. Please let me know if it needs further sources. --Kbabej (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of term affiliates

I removed the heading "Trump affiliates." Rationale: The term is the same for both family and lawyers. This seems inappropriate, especially since there is no use of the term "Clinton affiliates"--the use of the term in media itself could be an indicator of POV. For our purposes the term is lacking in clarity. If the term is used in the business sense, that is different than in the filial sense. Here it appears to be conflated. Just because two of his adult children are involved in his business/governance now doesn't mean they will be in the future.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Change article title, and reorganize by severity

This article will have much more clear organization by grouping stories of:

- RAPE,

- Sexual assault,

- Sexual misconduct.

And because there are multiple accusations which are much more severe than mere sexual misconduct, this article needs to be RENAMED. Proposed new title:

- Donald Trump rape, sexual assault and misconduct allegations and admissions

He is on record bragging about committing sexual assault against multiple women, so admissions needs to be put into the title. It is not just all of these women coming forward with their stories. It is he himself admitting doing these kinds of things. As the article stands today, it is written weakly, and needs to be strengthened. Once the reorganization has happened, it will be clear exactly how many women are saying he raped them. The most egregious info will not be buried within the stories of women who say he kissed them when it was unwanted. --Lexi sioz (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed It`s obvious he is guilty of at least some of these alligations..in addition there is plenty of information regarding him and Jeff Epstein that supports they were serial sexual predators who most likely assaulted women of all ages on a regular basis..the article needs to be strengthened.2600:1702:2340:9470:45FD:73DE:5B30:D6DD (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

12- and 13-year-old girls

Are the two underage girls (then aged 12 and 13) Donald J. Trump has been accused (along with Jeffrey Epstein) of raping mentioned in this article? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No but it should be. 2600:1702:2340:9470:7C6C:B088:A333:1D6B (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried adding this information, backed up by this source, but the article appears to be locked from editing. Will someone please add this information, so our article is as encyclopedic as possible? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is why the article is protected. – bradv🍁 02:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding a ref to this clearly-fabricated story adds balance to the article and demonstrates that, regardless of which of the article accusations may be true, DT has in fact been targeted by unbelievably false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:A2:68DD:BA00:C168:5BA8:3AFF:FDB (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing clear about it..there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the accusations have been fabricated.2600:1702:2340:9470:45FD:73DE:5B30:D6DD (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Rape lawsuit and affidavits

As per Bassett, Laura (July 11, 2019). "When Does America Reckon with the Gravity of Donald Trump's Alleged Rapes?". GQ. I propose that we link to the Donald Trump & Jeffrey Epstein Rape Lawsuit and Affidavits alongside describing Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's plea bargain offer allowing Epstein to avoid jail time for the alleged sexual abuse of, "nearly three dozen girls, mostly 13-16 years old, at his Palm Beach mansion from 1999 to 2006," when he was alleged to have used the girls and staff to help recruit other young girls, sometimes booking "three or four girls a day." I propose that the plea bargain be referred to as a "hush payment," because of mainstream news reports such as this, and the plea bargain terms which were rejected by a Federal Judge because they did not include a way to notify the victims of the status and whereabouts of the convicted. EllenCT (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0BF:31AF:BEB7:8FAE (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This Article Needs to Include Katie Johnson!

It seems very strange that the allegations of this lower-middle-class nail shop girl don't "count" while the allegations of the 18 more "respectable" women do. It's a huge oversight since her two court filings are real and serious allegations. Here is the latest version. Read the affidavits of Katie Johnson and her witness starting around the 15th page.

--Jeffsyrop (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I added it a few weeks ago, but it was reverted per 2016 consensus. Maybe it's time to revisit the consensus. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It should be overruled. There is more than enough material and witness testimony by two witnesses. It's probably the most serious and disturbing cases of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits

Verificity (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I strongly agree..with the death threats to her and her family 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0BF:31AF:BEB7:8FAE (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

12- and 13-year-old girls

Are the two underage girls (then aged 12 and 13) Donald J. Trump has been accused (along with Jeffrey Epstein) of raping mentioned in this article? link? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No: those accusations have been retracted, and it has been decided by RfC not to mention them, see Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 8#RfC: Jane Doe content. — JFG ^talk 18:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

More accurately: the lawsuit was dropped, not necessarily that the accusations were retracted. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Right: the story was ginned up a few days before the 2016 election, and dropped shortly afterwards. Barring the appearance of any new facts in that case, there is no reason to re-open it here. — JFG ^talk 20:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing it should be reopened. I'm saying that your characterization is incorrect. The original suit was filed in April 2016, and Doe canceled her scheduled November 2 press conference allegedly because she received threats, then dropped the suit. She has not recanted, and the suit included a sworn affidavit from a woman who claimed Epstein employed her to procure underage girls, and that she eyewitnessed the assaults. soibangla (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, JFG. That the lawsuit was dropped is no proof or even evidence that the story was "ginned up". But I support the RfC result, nothing has changed enough since then to warrant a revisit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe "ginned up" doesn't mean what I think it means. Certainly the story was timed so as to get the most political bang for the buck. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Given the extensive history documented in this article, and the well-documented long friendship of the two men, I am less inclined to reflexively presume a political motive by Doe, unless warning America against electing a monster as president can be considered "political." soibangla (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we've speculated enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be in this article and the trump article..the substance is identical to the other lawsuits except for the addition of death threats...the timing of the lawsuit being dropped is suspicious as is the recent death of epstein 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0BF:31AF:BEB7:8FAE (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add this, you'll probably need more recent RS than the 2016 coverage, and call a new RfC. — JFG ^talk 01:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What about epstien ? He was associated with these charges as well 2600:1702:2340:9470:D515:E49A:D804:2E3B (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

In the caption under the picture on the top right,the sentence "A confidentiality clause also prevents her discussing the marriage or the divorce." needs to be changed to "A confidentiality clause in the divorce settlement also prevents her discussing the marriage or the divorce.". The existing references are sufficient, and in addition, this proposed change is backed up later in the article with this reference.

Disclosure: I'm an autoconfirmed editor, wishing to avoid association with this article through my edit history. 123.201.228.225 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@123.201.228.225: Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monniasza (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Monniasza: Thanks for the edit! I took the liberty of altering your message on this talk page to preserve the section title. Peace. 123.201.226.161 (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Tried, but failed (error?) to update the Alva Johnson case

I've just tried to edit this article, but additions were rejected. My proposed addition referred to the Alva Johnson's case, based on today's Politico:

Trump’s attorneys, however, presented in court a video of the episode, showing "an unremarkable, brief and friendly greeting that hardly resembled the 'battery' Johnson alleged in her suit." As a result, U.S. District Court Judge William Jung dismissed Johnson’s battery complaint, saying it amounted to a “political lawsuit.” Following this dismissal, Johnson dropped her lawsuit over the episode.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brachney (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

add Summer Zervos update?

• Judge denies Trump's request to dismiss Summer Zervos defamation case November 19, 2019 CNN Veronica Stracqualursi and Athena Jones

X1\ (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this request/update qualifies as a fundamentally non-controversial factual edit. Go for it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

add to Summer Zervos section ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-called-woman-who-says-he-sexually-assaulted-her-phone-records-show/2019/11/05/d973b714-ffe2-11e9-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html Phone records show that Trump made at least six phone calls to Zervos. X1\ (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump has not denied knowing her AFAICT, and phone calls are not sexual misconduct let alone sexual assault. Seems a nothingburger to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The source is defaulting to the FrontPage for me now; not sure if that’s happening to anyone else. Regardless, I agree with Mandruss here. Trump obviously lied, but that’s par for the course. Causation isn’t necessarily correlation. Wait for more sources to make any explicit links. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trumps latent indications that he is sexually 'challenged'!

In the 'far east' we have a sect of 'human beings' who were referred to as EUNUCHS. Visibly, they were men, with shaved beard growths, but their mannerisms, gesticulations, waving of their arms and coyness collectively belied the fact that though they were 'men', their mannerisms, tone of voice seemed to indicate they were on the fringe of being female! It is only for the past 3.5 years when we see donald Trump on TV to the extent he is now, leads me to believe he has all the leanings of being a 'eunuch'! Is this my imagination of my deep sated 'loathness' of the creature you Americans have as someone no less that your Prsident! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E380:95B:888D:78AA:E1A7:DEDB (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

update "Summer Zervos" section?

• 'Apprentice' contestant's lawsuit against Trump goes to top New York court January 7, 2020 Reuters

update Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Summer Zervos (2007) ? X1\ (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

[[{{{article}}}]]

The result of this discussion was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

43 allegations

The article contains this text:

"In October 2019, the book All the President's Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator, by Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy was published, containing 43 additional allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump."

Are these 43 allegations summarized in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations

I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In late June 2019, E. Jean Carroll, writer, former Miss Indiana University and former Miss Cheerleader USA, claimed in a New York magazine cover story that she was sexually assaulted by Trump in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996.

Carroll wrote that they had met by chance in the department store, where he recognized her as "that advice lady", and that Trump had asked her to advise him on a present for "a girl". Trump took her to the lingerie section, where no one was around. Trump asked her to try on a piece of lingerie and took her to a dressing room; there he pushed her against a wall, causing her to hit her head "quite badly"; then he allegedly forcibly kissed her. Carroll then said, "he ... pulls down my tights ... forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway—or completely, I'm not certain—inside me". After a struggle, she said she escaped from the dressing room and left the store. She said the incident lasted for no more than three minutes.

Carroll wrote that Bergdorf Goodman no longer had security tapes from that period and that she did not report the incident to the police, but that also she had told two friends of hers. One told Carroll she had been raped and to make a police report. The other told Carroll, "Tell no one. Forget it! He has 200 lawyers. He'll bury you." Carroll's friends confirmed those conversations to New York.

Trump has given multiple responses, including: "she's not my type" and also saying he never met her. However, in her story, Carroll had provided a photograph of her meeting Trump in 1987, along with Carroll's then-husband John Johnson and Trump's then-wife Ivana.

The two friends Carroll had confided in was revealed by the New York Times to be writer Lisa Birnbach and news anchor Carol Martin, when they and Carroll appeared on the podcast of the New York Times taped on June 26, 2019, which narrated the following events: Carroll had remained silent for so long because she partially blamed herself for the incident, though she eventually stopped blaming herself. Carroll refused to say she was "raped", instead choosing to describe it thus: "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... Something has not been done to me. I fought."

Whatever the case, the paragraph about Carroll, as the article stands now, is ridiculously unencyclopedic. Why not simply add the needed citations and restore the text so readers are not kept in the dark, rather than have the section about Carroll so woefully inadequate, now three months after your deletions? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent move

Recently Miserlou moved the article to "Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations".[10] There were at least two previous move discussions that mention sexual assault in the title that I could find, here and here. I reverted and suggest a discussion or formal request move. PackMecEng (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with this reversion, per WP:RM#CM. Discussion and consensus is required. BD2412 T 04:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ivanka pic at top

It doesn't seem OK to me that we have ex-WIFE Ivanka's photo alongside Trump's at the top. Thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well first off, big difference between "Ivana" and "Ivanka". I guess somebody put it there because Ivana did allege sexual misconduct by Donald during their divorce proceedings. I would have no objection to removing the lead image. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

OMG sorry, Ivana. Next editor who agrees could remove it? SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done - [11] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, easy mistake to make. Ivanka's name is actually "Ivana". I learned that on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

All the world's knowledge at our fingertips. It's like Misha and Mishka. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To add: Amy Dorris

To add: Amy Dorris. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Added – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

One source is reporting this. Why is it notable? Seems to be NOTNEWS to me. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian broke the story, and now every other news outlet is covering it. The topic, sexual misconduct allegations against Trump, is notable beyond NOTNEWS, and this is another allegation to add to the notable topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling error

"A 2002 article in New York magazine quoted Trump talking about Jeffery Epstein" misspells Jeffrey Just bugged me and it's protected so I can't edit2601:85:C003:5D60:BC6C:FE4D:7A4B:3BEC (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've fixed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

NOT CURRENT PRESIDENT

EDIT NOW Yazzy268 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Barring extraordinary developments, Trump is, and will remain, the President of the United States until January 20, 2021. BD2412 T 21:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

To the end of the ALVA JOHNSON entry:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5482728/trump-lawyers-video-kiss-alva-johnson-lawsuit/

That video shows the alleged kiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalastro (talk • contribs) 07:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Murphy

1. The section repeats itself. Two paragraphs when it should be one. 2. I assume this has already been discussed, but am new to Wikipedia and not sure how to access past discussions: is this really sexual misconduct? It was a kiss that took her by surprise, which implies it was initiated without consent, but a lot of times kisses which take people by surprise occur which would not be regarded as sexual misconduct. A single act of non-consensual kissing can definitely be a type of sexual misconduct, but this doesn't apply to every kiss undertaken without explicit consent, as with sexual intercourse and rape. No act is rendered consensual or not by either party's feelings towards it after the fact (though these feelings may assist the person's understanding of what took place), but by Murphy's assertion it did not "really bother [her]" and with her choice not to describe it explicitly as non-consensual, I think this paints a picture of the circumstances which would point to it falling outside of misconduct. Starchman46 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the above message, I've deleted the section. Easy enough to put back with a source stating this action was "misconduct." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Katie Johnson (1994)

Doe v. Trump (2016) (1:16-cv-07673-RA) was the case of child rape filed against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein for their underage sex parties at Epstein's residence in Manhattan in 1994, four of which were attended by Donald Trump.

Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein (2016) (5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS) was another case where the pair forcibly raped three 12 and 13 year old girls at underage sex parties at Epstein's Manhattan residence in 1994. The plaintiff's filings were "voluntarily" withdrawn after she had received death threats, and the charges were then dismissed

References

Enix150 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Katie Johnson (1994)

Would someone take a look at the section? The five-sentence paragraph currently has eighteen references. Twelve of these look to support one sentence. This is surely citation overkill. Grant it, a die-hard Trump fanatic might cry foul even if there was a video of some transgression, however, two or three citations are plenty to prove a point. I would imagine any extra sources could be placed on the talk page. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Judge confirms Trump raped Carroll

Judge Hanlon said Carroll can still call Trump a rapist and clarified that NY definition is unusually narrow (penile penetration only) whilst most states, and certainly common understanding would term what Trump did (penetration with finger) as rape. So by general understanding Trump is a rapist. 2A00:23C7:130F:4A01:1AA:14CB:CD1F:467C (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Modifying the page title

Why is Bill Clinton's page titled "Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations," but Trump's page is titled "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations"? Shouldn't the two have parallel titles (so the Trump page title would be "Donald Trump sexual assault and misconduct allegations"), especially since multiple women have alleged that Trump sexually assaulted them, and he was found liable in court for sexual assault? Biden's page is also titled "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. While we should not change the title simply to harmonize articles, the situations are similar and would justify similar titles. In the interests of keeping titles short, I'd favor the format Whomever's sexual misconduct allegations. That covers assaults, rapes, etc. A title does not need to cover everything. (I added wikilinks to your comment.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Experience tells us that overthink of article titles is a bad idea. Anyway, I think prior attempts to say "sexual assault" in this article's title have failed; see archive. What happens for Bill Clinton has no bearing on this article, or vice versa. Not to say one shouldn't go to the Clinton article and suggest a move, if such a move hasn't already been proposed and failed, but not solely for consistency with this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Mandrusss, I found the previous discussions in Archives 3 and 7; thanks for alerting me to those. At the time of those discussions (2016), Clinton's page was titled "Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations," and Biden's assault allegation page did not exist. Clinton's page title was changed in 2020 without discussion, with an editor explanation "moved page Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations to Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations: The word 'misconduct', linked in the opening paragraph, says misconduct is for less-than-rape charges, but one of these charges is explicitly a rape." FWIW, the page for "sexual misconduct" no longer says that. I do think that WP:AVOIDBIAS applies, as right now, the phrase "sexual assault" only appears in the titles for Democratic (former) Presidents, but not the Republican former President. Changing the other two to just "misconduct allegation(s)" is acceptable to me. And Valjean, thanks for adding the wikilinks to my comment. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Underage sex parties section

On October 25, 2016, allegations were made by two men stating that Trump had attended and partaken in sex parties filled with underage minor females as young as 15 years old who were induced with promises of career advancement. Illegal drugs were also alleged to have been provided to the minors.

One man was identified as model and actor Andy Lucchesi, while the other was identified as a fashion photographer who spoke on condition of anonymity. Both men claim to have been acquaintances of Trump during that decade, which one described as his "Trump days".

The anonymous witness said Trump had sex with the girls, going from room to room, saying "[Trump would] wander off with a couple girls. I saw him. He was getting laid like crazy. Trump was at the heart of it. He loved the attention and in private, he was a total f*cking beast." He claimed the parties were attended by minors as young as 15 years of age, adding "I was there [only] to party myself. It was [other] guys with younger girls, sex, a lot of sex, a lot of cocaine, top-shelf liquor."

Lucchesi, for his part, claimed that he saw Trump engage in sexual activity with the girls but did not witness him taking illicit drugs. In regards to the age of the girls, Lucchesi said he himself never specifically asked about their ages, only remarking of the attendees "a lot of girls, [aged] 14, look 24."

References

Enix150 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous to go off hearsay at best. They couldn't even give specific ages. Oh they look 24, but lots of girls look 24 at 14.

We know how the media just copies each other stories, so citing more articles that provide no further details but just repeat the same points is Not supporting the original charge.

How low do wikipedia standards go to include this? 1.47.132.122 (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Inadequate Context, potential bias?

I could not help but to notice that near the top of the page it reads "Trump was recorded bragging that a celebrity like himself "can do anything" to women, including "just start kissing them ... I don't even wait" and "grab 'em by the pussy"."

While Trump did say those words, the page does however twist the words of the former present and omit words to the point that it sounds like he's saying that celebrities can just rape women as they please. On a personal level, I do think that may be true to an extent, celebrities do have a privilege there but this is Wikipedia and that kind of bias is not acceptable. In context, Trump actually said "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

While the comments are still inappropriate and disgusting, that is still a subjective opinion. While his words can be interpreted the same way if you so choose, they can easily be interpreted otherwise. It's wrong to include choppy quotes from a person to fit a narrative. Wikipedia should either include all the words in their proper context or omit them all together. To further drive my point home, I'm not even a supporter of this clown yet I still think this page is in the wrong for maliciously twisting a living person's words with the possible intent to defame him. MountainJew6150 (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete this page / add to bio pages

This page, and others like it for other people, seem libelous/slanderous, at least as separate pages rather than part of any individual's page. 2601:182:800:8273:8C70:293D:3952:4007 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Katie Johnson

Should Katie Johnson rape allegations be included in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article?Ordinary Person (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. In light of the conviction for falsifying documents to “disguise” hush money payments Trump Org/Trump made to women as “legal expenses” this 2016 rape allegation takes on new import.

Trump was convicted of falsifying documents to HIDE Daniels/McDougal infidelities to protect Trump’s odds in 2016 election per court testimony. Jane Doe & witness Tiffany Doe had a court date of 6 Dec 2016. But on 4 Nov 2016, the case was dropped. Four days before 8 Nov election. THOSE are FACTs. A second billionaire, Leon Black, was similarly accused in July 2023 of raping a teen at Epstein’s NY mansion. And, his case was similarly dropped in 2024. Black “settled” a case for $62M in Virgin Islands, where Epstein kept a separate residence.

98.169.185.169 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been seven years since the original RfC on this topic. I'd like to reopen the discussion. I only have a few points to make:
a) The court documents relating to Johnson's lawsuits are available to the public. It's not a matter of reasonable dispute that this allegation of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump took place. The case numbers were 1:16-cv-04642 and 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS.
b) The cases were noteworthy enough to receive full coverage in the Daily Mail, PBS, MSNBC, The Guardian, Newsweek, Politico: in some instances she is referred to as Katie Johnson, elsewhere as Jane Doe. The level of coverage was similar to the that related to Summer Zervos, Kristin Heller or Lisa Boyne, whose cases are covered in this Wikipedia article.
c) The cases are referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia: in Legal affairs of Donald Trump and List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump.
In terms of the letter of Wikipedia rules, or in terms of consistent practice, I don't see any logical reason to exclude this notable sexual misconduct allegation against Donald Trump from this article on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Ordinary Person (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The allegation was as real as any other allegations made. Trump has only been found liable ONCE although MANY MANY women have complained. Brainy86 (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

• I agree. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support though I feel I should make clear I don't agree with all of the proposer's rationales. The mere fact that legal allegations are public or in a court document doesn't itself render them worthy of inclusion. (After all, the vast, vast majority of allegations made in a lawsuit will be public—exceptions include sealed or restricted cases—at least those are the terms most federal courts use.) Also, I'd be particularly wary of relying on case documents, which are primary sources, particularly concerning in BLPs. Rather, the decisive factor for me is the second point: according to the proposer, the story has now received far more coverage than it had by the time of the first RFC. As long as we stick to the reliable secondary sources, I think it's clear the information should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- Enix150 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is a sub-article devoted specifically to that topic, and there's substantial coverage supporting the fact that the allegations took place, and are sufficiently significant to play a part in the overall history of sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump. Summaries of sexual misconduct allegations against him frequently mention it in a way that shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage, eg. [12][13]. --Aquillion (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - yes it is relevant and should be included.Downinit9 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, due to substantial coverage by RS. Alaexis_¿question? 11:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

• Weak oppose or the briefest mention in the interest of completeness. At the time of the last RfC there appear to have been only 4 RS covering this, (+Daily Mail) some of which were no more than a passing mention in articles mainly about other topics, or merely covered the suit being dropped. I don't see any reason to think that coverage has increased - though one might expect it to have done so given other ongoing accusations against Trump. I think we should resist any tendency to think that because some accusations have been taken up - and indeed gone to trial - therefore all accusations are worthy of inclusion - RS, don't seem to think so. It may seem inconsistent to 'list' these accusations but there is an argument that listing needs a lower level of sourcing than coverage. What actually could be said apart from the fact that accusations were made but then withdrawn? If it was disproportionate WP:WEIGHT to include them in the past, what has changed? (Summoned by bot) Pincrete (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Largely due to Pincrete's comments, as well as the rationale at the closure of the last RfC on this issue. The most coverage this ever received was when the lawsuit was actually dropped, it has received largely passing mentions since then. I understand that this is mentioned elsewhere, and that's WP:OTHERSTUFF; this probably should be mentioned at Lisa Bloom as she represented the accuser, along with other women who came forward in 2016, and that ended up being a notable story in its own right.LM2000 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I just came across this and am reading up, but given that a prior RFC was mentioned I thought I'd link it:

• RFC: Jane Doe content, closed December 23, 2016, discussed whether a pending lawsuit against Trump should be included. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". The lawsuit was, per a table in the RFC, covered by four outlets, and not covered by a substantial number of notable outlets. The dispute largely concerned whether WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:EXCEPTIONAL should take precedence, as, per the closer: "Coverage in sources that are traditionally considered "mainstream" was rare and generally limited to brief mentions that the lawsuit is pending." There were also concerns about recency.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Closing discussion with the result being inclusion per WP:AVALANCHE. Enix150 (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • No, you're an active participant and the RfC has not had much feedback. Let a neutral party close it.LM2000 (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, I have concerns about the wording. If this article is subjected to the BLP policy, and I would agree with recent concerns, Wikipedia editors should be careful not to hang a person without due process. As far as I understand Trump was not convicted of a crime. There is breaking news that Trump was found liable for battery and defamation, a civil tort, and not a crime of rape. Wording from editors such as "Katie Johnson rape allegations", or comments such as "there's substantial coverage supporting the fact that the allegations took place". Even if there is "substantial coverage" claiming Trump's "alleged acts", that is not the verdict of the civil trial. A note states; Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. In this case that has not happened. This was stated above: "It's not a matter of reasonable dispute that this allegation of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump took place". Again, the jury, as for as I know, did not render a verdict of any sexual misconduct even though the type of "battery" was sexual in nature. I admit it was a strange verdict. Culpability for battery, with testimony offered, would seem to have not been a stretch to find sexual misconduct or worse. That did not happen and I would imagine there could be an appeal. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and a local consensus, even if stretching this to include "Ignore all rules" would be ignoring WP:policies and guidelines. Also, there is absolutely no doubt this is controversial so an Admin should close. There are policy issues at stake, maybe even some legal issues, so this needs a closing by someone that can take that into account. At any rate, the wording used by some editors above surely indicates some WP:bias. Concerns of NPOV are also evident. If this is allowed editors should be cautioned that wording has to be used that is neutral as Wikipedia is not a court of law. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

New Jeffrey Epstein documents

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-documents-b2475210.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/before-marrying-melania-in-2005-what-new-documents-claim-about-trump-epstein/amp_articleshow/111465121.cms

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154484/1/katie-johnson-v-donald-j-trump/ Victor Grigas (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)