....with this one. "You're a rapist, but worse than that, you and your policies permit hundreds of rapes."

But once again, Trumpy dodges bullets. No one holds him to accountability. He truly remains Teflon Don.

I saw the interview. Carroll is an intelligent person with an upbeat message. But I'm not able to come to terms with her term "disrespectful" as a reason for not pursuing prosecution. I think that doing so would, more than anything, dismantle her carefully manicured brand. Carroll may be doing worse than it first appears. There IS disrespect. She is disrespecting all of the women who HAVE been abused, but are not in a position of privilege to pursue justice in a way that benefits them. Carroll's apparent message to victims of Trumpy's rapes and assaults is, "buck up. It wasn't that bad." By extension, her message of accepting abuse as part of life applies to all women who have been deeply offended and spiritually gutted by sexual violence.

I hope that Carroll's appearance on television on Friday night will be her last. Victims of sexual violence don't need this kind of advocacy.

Is she heading to the border to help all those victims of rape? I read her comments with disbelief.

She is afraid of the (probable) negative shit that would come of it. She would have her life threatened I'm sure.

even if she wanted to press charges, the statue of limitations ran out in the 1990s, so he can't be prosecuted anyway.

has been abolished.

And that S o L was only 5 years.

and didn't watch the video accompanying that article.

You can't change the S o L retroactively.

Link to tweet

No matter what the legislature does afterward.

statute hadn't yet run.

This assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996, so the previous statute of limitations had expired by 2001 and, so, the new unlimited statute of limitations doesn't apply.

battered woman's shelter, I can tell you that many rape victims will deal with the trauma any way they can. They will rationalize. They often tell themselves that others are worse off, or they deserved it, or any other thing that just lets them put one foot in front of the other so they can go on living some kind of life. But it never goes away. It always creeps in when we least expect it, even decades later.
And once again will tell ourselves whatever we can to get through that day, or that hour, or that minute. And while I may not agree with her approach, I will not judge her.

Strike a blow at the head of the snake. For her own reasons she chooses not to.

abolished. She can file charges if she chooses to do so.

that the 1st degree rape S of L was eliminated. But that couldn't affect people who had already passed the old S o L.

program.

at the time the rape occurred.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/06/bill-de-blasio-says-nypd-will-investigate-the-latest-rape-allegations-against-trump-an-expert-says-it-probably-cant/

Mother Jones‘ Madison Pauly spoke with Roger Canaff, a former sex crimes prosecutor in the Bronx who now trains law enforcement on how to handle sexual violence cases, just as Carroll’s allegations came to light. And she learned that prosecuting the president for this heinous act might be impossible.

The primary reason is that the statute of limitations for first-degree rape in New York was only five years during the mid-1990s. New York updated the law in 2006 to the current standard, “but the new law doesn’t apply to cases in which the statute of limitations has already expire,” Pauly writes.

And Canaff told Pauly that federal case law has enforced that precedent:

MJ: Today, there’s no statute of limitations for first-degree rape in New York. But that’s only been the case since 2006. Before then, New York’s statute of limitations for first-degree rape was only five years. Which laws apply, the current ones or the laws at the time?

RC: The Supreme Court case is called Stogner vs. California. Basically what it says is you cannot change the statute of limitations, and then charge somebody under it retroactively. So if a crime is committed in 1995, and the statute of limitations at the time of the crime is five years, then even if the statute of limitations is changed 10 or 15 or 20 years later, a person who committed that crime in 1995 cannot be charged under it. The person has to be charged under the law as it existed at the time.

via her twitter account. The current law has no statute of limitations, but the law in effect when this incident happened did. Charges would be prosecuted under the law in effect at the time, not the new law.

She talks about a camp counsellor who molested her at 12, and how, if she were more "aware" or whatever, by 25 she could have stopped him, maybe. She didn't and apparently regrets that. She herself has counselled other women that such things "are not your fault." And yet she holds to the idea that this was her fault, but that it hasn't affected her life and other things are more important--and yet that dress is still hanging, untouched in her closet.

She could have done something then, she still could.... Test the dress: that would be respectful, of all the other women he has done this to, who need a voice. You already put your name and your story out there, what's the point of stopping now?

She spoke out, which is a big deal in itself.

But that said, the statute of limitations expired decades ago, so he can't be prosecuted anyway.

There is no statute of limitations on 1st degree rape in NY.

It ran out in 2000 or 2001 and, therefore, isn't governed by the new unlimited statute, which didn't go into effect until 2006.

think along the same lines as someone outside the box looking in. I believe her story. However I do not profess to being able to be in her shoes and feel what she has been feeling all these years.

Perhaps she is thinking that she would be using "privilege" as a well off White woman, something that is not being afforded to victims at the border.

I don't necessarily agree with that analysis, but that I what I think she is conveying.

I think that Trump AND his administration need to be held accountable personally and within the bounds of human rights violations. Trump is a misogynist and his misogyny filters through in how he is not responding to the problems at the border.

shoes though.

It is difficult to judge though, like you said. I would not want to be having to make the decisions Ms. Caroll has to be making.

guilty for not having it as bad as others. I also can't stand the 'me too' movement. Every time a woman speaks out it pisses me off. A lot of the time, I think they can't possibly know what they're talking about, because they're talking about it. I think because women have come forward, times have changed the meaning of sexual assault. But being a product of another time, makes it hard to understand. I don't think I've ever known what 'normal' is, and it isn't becoming any clearer. Aging is weird.

Only a persecutor can. A person can make a complaint about an alleged crime and a prosecutor can file charges or do nothing.

rule. If they brought a 1st degree rape charge against him we might get an orange perp walk.

And why come forward now instead of after the Access Hollywood tape, and then not want to do something about it?

I saw her this morning on Joy Reid and she talked about the attack, saying she was so shocked she laughed all the way through it. Also laughed afterwards when she called a friebd abd told her about the attack.

She makes it hard to figure what to do with this info.

The last thing she probably wants to deal with is having her character tarnished and her life threatened by scumbags and lunatics. Given all that she's facing if she pursues this further, I can't blame her personally for choosing not to.

she would never have opened up at all

I'm glad she spoke up.

And since the statute of limitations ran nearly 20 years ago and he can't be prosecuted, she's done all she can at this point.

But regardless, it's completely up to her whether or not to talk about it publicly.

She is person who suffered. She is the one who gets to decide how she will handle it.