Trump's Lawyer as Shitty a Lawyer as Trump Is a Person


If Trump wants to know who's doing the raping, he should be watching more 80's sitcoms.
Trump is a perfect example of someone who was born into wealth, and so will remain wealthy and insulated from the real world his whole life.

Because he has always had a safety net of his family wealth, his myriad of abject failures have not really affected him much. So he know probably believes that he is not even capable of being wrong about anything. The guy is basically insane.
Oh, nonsense. A man can't rape his wife. For that to be the case, they would have to be two different people, with differing needs and desires. Why, the next thing you'll be saying is that children can disagree with their parents, or that people can't own slaves, or that the fact of God's existence and His plan for mankind aren't crystal clear!

Some Evangelical blog this is! I just may report you all to the synod.
A bit of editing is needed. Nobody needs the consent of my wife before having sex with their spouse, and the arrangement wasn't between "men two men". Otherwise, nice job.
For extra points, Trump's lawyer came up with that little gem in the middle of a spittle-flecked rant in which he threatened a reporter for a major news website with nuisance lawsuits if she dared to report factually on a book that Ivana Trump published a decade ago.

If you've ever wondered "what kind of person would want to be Trump's lawyer?" the answer is pretty clearly "exactly the kind of asshole you'd suspect."
@3: Thank you, Lance Thrustwell, for making me spit coffee all over my screen.
@5: Kind of reminds me of Charles Carreon, the insane lawyer of FunnyJunk.……
(Inman was 100% right except for calling a pterosaur a dinosaur.)
This is doubtlessly The Donald's way of courting the women's vote. Keep up the good work!
The sad thing is, the apologists are already lining up. You thought the Cosby deniers were bad? This is gonna get ugly like you wouldn't believe. It's all a liberal plot! She recanted her story! Bill Clinton Woody Allen Roman Polanski! Or, worst of all, "So what? Bitch deserved it."
The New York State Supreme Curt, or the highest court (which is the Court of Appeals)? We do things a bit backward here; the Supreme Court is actually the court of first whatever-the-fuck (IANAL) and Justices are in fact elected. Correspondingly, the NYS Supreme Court can't meaningfully (if at all, I'm still NAL) overturn laws.
@3: Mrs. Betty Bowers better be worried. You might overtake her for America's Best Christian. ;)
I'd like to point out the The Donald pays this man to speak for him. What does that say about Mr. Trump that he not only hires assholes (to be expected), but that he hires incompetent assholes?
Well, defenders of "traditional" marriage don't really like being reminded that marriage once was a property transfer of a woman from her father to her husband. Even though they're pretty regressive about gender roles, it's not something they like to think about.
@3 - Extra points for the name.
This guy is a damn joke. No one with even the weakest of rationality would take his candidacy seriously. While this monkey in a suit is performing his song and dance for the masses, What are the puppeteers doing that they needed our attention so diverted. Riddle me this?
The GOP candidates make me as sad/mad as their followers. smh
> Biblically, we do not believe marital rape is possible.
> Scripture clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that a wife’s
> body is her husbands and a husband’s body is his wife’s.

`If thine eye offend thee, even if it be thy good eye, pluck it out. '

Given that genitals ideally play no part in Christian marriage as originally construed, wedded celibacy being preferred, penes would be even less important than eyes, so if the "wife"'s penis should offend her....
Matthias 19:11-12

Qui dixit eis: " Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est.

Sunt enim eunuchi, qui de matris utero sic nati sunt: et sunt eunuchi, qui facti sunt ab hominibus: et sunt eunuchi, qui seipsos castraverunt propter regnum cælorum. Qui potest capere capiat.
Now That's What I Call Traditional Marriage!
@16: "No one with even the weakest of rationality would take his candidacy seriously."

You mean like the vast majority of GOP voters in early primary states?…
The update is laughably dumb. "We must no longer refer to dining outdoors as 'outdoor dining,' because we feel that trivializes it relative to indoor dining, when really they're both just dining, and we're not quite clever enough to understand why anyone would ever be in a circumstance where they want to be more specific. Here, have a citation for an irrelevant study because we like sounding science-y, since we've mistaken 'sounding science-y' for being correct."
@22: And LAW is themselves inconsistent by using "stranger rape". If it is never useful to distinguish stranger / acquaintance / marital rape, then why do it?

Of course acquaintance rape, stranger rape and marital rape are all wrong, thankfully now all illegal, need to punished and, most importantly, stopped. Sure, there are some measures that are common to reducing all three - self-defense, consistent laws and consistent enforcement. But there are also clearly skills, knowledge and behaviors that help reduce some and not others e.g. a clear understanding and obtaining of consent by both parties should eliminate acquaintance and marital rape but not stranger rape (as those terms are commonly used).
I don't think specifying the type of rape devalues it or trivializes it in any way. Calling marital rape marital rape lets everyone know what a betrayal of trust That rape In Particular was. Same as with statutory rape, it's not a lesser form of rape, it is still rape (I only think "child molestation" is the one that should be changed, it tries to excuse a rape by calling it "bothersome", rather than "life-shattering trauma").
Bless your heart, L.A.W.
"Marital" is merely a descriptor that provides context. It does not automatically imply that the rape is a lesser crime unless an idiot infers as much.
@26 - true enough. There is one descriptor that does sometimes indicate a 'lesser' sort of rape, and that's "statutory" - i.e. understood to mean that an act of (probably) consensual sex is considered "rape" under the law but not necessarily by any of the parties involved.

Otherwise, yeah. All rape is bad, and the adjective in front of it doesn't make it any better.

Mr. Fnord @19: yes, but don't you think it reads better in the original Greek?
Hi Ophian - thought similarly, but could be difficult getting Greek alphabet on SLOG?
An experiment:

Ματθαίος 19 : 11-12

Και τους είπε , " Όλοι οι άνδρες δεν μπορούν να δεχθούν αυτόν τον λόγο , αλλά σε όσους είναι δοσμένο .

Διότι υπάρχουν κάποιοι ευνούχοι , οι οποίοι έτσι γεννήθηκε από τη μήτρα της μητέρας τους : και υπάρχουν κάποιες ευνούχοι , οι οποίες έγιναν ευνούχοι των ανδρών : και να υπάρχουν ευνούχοι , που έχουν κάνει ευνούχους για την βασιλεία των ουρανών . Μπορεί να το πάρετε .

Copypasting works well.
Still @29, Sandi @30: tee hee hee.