Yes, it has been a disaster. He has fat chance of winning over women now.
I'm still fascinated by the Clinton campaign ignoring the fact that Trump is being sued by a woman who claims he raped her in the company of a now-convicted paedophile Billionaire, Epstein, when she was just 13. And the press has largely ignored it too.
I had hoped that Clinton would unleash this nuclear assault during the 2nd debate when Trump accused Bill of rape but there was just the sound of crickets while a tumbleweed drifted lazily across the stage. Subsequently, articles suggested Hillary was advised to "do no harm" - Trump was imploding all by himself, so there was no need to try for a knockout blow (cf the 1st debate where the Machado set piece set his implosion in motion).
That advice to do no harm was general and there's been nothing to suggest that there has been any thought given to the rape claim. I could certainly understand, though, that going there might conceivably have blown up in her face.
To start with, the suit may be a malicious fabrication. It was filed under a pseudonym, so no one really knows much about the complainant or her credibility. It would certainly be a disaster if Hillary seized on it only to find that the complainant was in fact a 400 pound hacker, as Trump would say, who created it while sitting on his parents' couch. Even worse if said 400 pound hacker is a Hillary or Bernie supporter.
The chances of a fraud appear to be diminishing, though. For a start, the article I posted previously notes that a 2nd high-profile lawyer has now signed on to represent the complainant. Sure, some hack lawyers might believe any publicity is good publicity but high-profile lawyers don't want to risk being associated with a clusterfork. I'd imagine at the very least the lawyers have met with the complainant and vetted her to some degree. Then you have the fact that the Federal Court Judge set the case down for a case conference instead of dismissing it out of hand.
Clinton would be partly insulated, anyway, from claims that she set this thing in motion as the ultimate dirty trick. The complainant tried to launch the action in April this year without using a lawyer and it was dismissed on procedural grounds. Trump was then in a fight to death with Cruz while Hillary was fending off Sanders. Even if she had the foresight to lay down a surprise for Trump, you'd think she would have ensured that it cleared procedural obstacles.
On the other hand, maybe there is a concern that Trump would try to drag the Clintons down with him. Epstein was a big player in NY social circles and Bill Clinton mixed with him as he did with Trump. Whether true or not, Trump could say that he saw or heard of Bill doing X, Y and Z to women at one of Epstein's parties or on his private jet. Just associating Bill with a convicted paedophile would cause some damage. If Clinton wins, she won't want a poisoned chalice. If she goes in damaged, the Republicans in Congress will surely take advantage and block everything she tries to do.
Or maybe it makes sense to leave this knockout blow for later. He has been hit repeatedly on his attitude to women and less serious sexual assaults. As it stands, the allegations made in the rape case are no longer as surprising as they were before. They fit into the same pattern of behaviour, albeit so much more serious.
Could it come up in the 3rd debate? All Clinton would have to do is invite the audience to google Trump+rape and it will become a thing. Or she could hit him between the eyes with it. She doesn't have to worry about being sued for defamation as it's a fact he is being sued for child rape, as long as she doesn't assert that the allegations are true.
I'm still fascinated by the Clinton campaign ignoring the fact that Trump is being sued by a woman who claims he raped her in the company of a now-convicted paedophile Billionaire, Epstein, when she was just 13. And the press has largely ignored it too.
I had hoped that Clinton would unleash this nuclear assault during the 2nd debate when Trump accused Bill of rape but there was just the sound of crickets while a tumbleweed drifted lazily across the stage. Subsequently, articles suggested Hillary was advised to "do no harm" - Trump was imploding all by himself, so there was no need to try for a knockout blow (cf the 1st debate where the Machado set piece set his implosion in motion).
That advice to do no harm was general and there's been nothing to suggest that there has been any thought given to the rape claim. I could certainly understand, though, that going there might conceivably have blown up in her face.
To start with, the suit may be a malicious fabrication. It was filed under a pseudonym, so no one really knows much about the complainant or her credibility. It would certainly be a disaster if Hillary seized on it only to find that the complainant was in fact a 400 pound hacker, as Trump would say, who created it while sitting on his parents' couch. Even worse if said 400 pound hacker is a Hillary or Bernie supporter.
The chances of a fraud appear to be diminishing, though. For a start, the article I posted previously notes that a 2nd high-profile lawyer has now signed on to represent the complainant. Sure, some hack lawyers might believe any publicity is good publicity but high-profile lawyers don't want to risk being associated with a clusterfork. I'd imagine at the very least the lawyers have met with the complainant and vetted her to some degree. Then you have the fact that the Federal Court Judge set the case down for a case conference instead of dismissing it out of hand.
Clinton would be partly insulated, anyway, from claims that she set this thing in motion as the ultimate dirty trick. The complainant tried to launch the action in April this year without using a lawyer and it was dismissed on procedural grounds. Trump was then in a fight to death with Cruz while Hillary was fending off Sanders. Even if she had the foresight to lay down a surprise for Trump, you'd think she would have ensured that it cleared procedural obstacles.
On the other hand, maybe there is a concern that Trump would try to drag the Clintons down with him. Epstein was a big player in NY social circles and Bill Clinton mixed with him as he did with Trump. Whether true or not, Trump could say that he saw or heard of Bill doing X, Y and Z to women at one of Epstein's parties or on his private jet. Just associating Bill with a convicted paedophile would cause some damage. If Clinton wins, she won't want a poisoned chalice. If she goes in damaged, the Republicans in Congress will surely take advantage and block everything she tries to do.
Or maybe it makes sense to leave this knockout blow for later. He has been hit repeatedly on his attitude to women and less serious sexual assaults. As it stands, the allegations made in the rape case are no longer as surprising as they were before. They fit into the same pattern of behaviour, albeit so much more serious.
Could it come up in the 3rd debate? All Clinton would have to do is invite the audience to google Trump+rape and it will become a thing. Or she could hit him between the eyes with it. She doesn't have to worry about being sued for defamation as it's a fact he is being sued for child rape, as long as she doesn't assert that the allegations are true.