Donald Trump Has a Long History of Defending Men Accused of Sexual Assault

But only when they’re his friends.

Sonia Moskowitz/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

“He says that heā€™s innocent. I think you have to remember that.”

“He did a very good job while he was in the White House, and we hope that he has a wonderful career.”

These were President Donald Trump’s first public remarks addressing the resignation of Rob Porter, the White House aide who is facing public allegations of domestic abuse from his two former wives. The president on Friday did not express sympathy for the women, nor did he take a stand against domestic violence. Instead, Trump reminded reporters that Porter has denied the accusations. 

While many have expressed outrage in the wake of Trump’s praise for a staffer who allegedly beat his ex-wives, the remarks only continue the president’s longstanding record of valuing the denial of a man accused of misconduct over a woman’s serious accusations. 

Bill O’Reilly

After the New York Times revealed O’Reilly and Fox News paid nearly $13 million to settle multiple sexual harassments allegations, Trump told the paper that he believed O’Reilly was “a good person.”

“Personally, I think he shouldnā€™t have settled,” Trump said. “Because you should have taken it all the way; I donā€™t think Bill did anything wrong.”

Corey Lewandowski

In March 2016, the former Trump campaign manager was charged with battery after he forcefully grabbed a female reporter by the arm during a rally in Florida. The reporter, Michelle Fields, who then worked for Breitbart, later published images of bruises she said resulted from the altercation. Surveillance video also emerged that appeared to verify Fields’ account. 

But then-candidate Trump dismissed Fields’ claims as a “disgrace.” He told Good Morning America: “She had a pen in her hand, and you know, that could have been a knife, that could have beenā€”even a pen, it’s dangerous.

“He’s a fine person, he’s a very good person,” Trump said of Lewandowski. “And I don’t want to destroy a man. If you let him go, you would destroy a man, destroy a family.”

Roy Moore

Despite an explosive Washington Post story detailing sexual misconduct accusations against then-Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, Trump repeatedly defended the former judge as the more favorable choice to Democrat Doug Jones. Trump also emphasized that Moore had denied the allegations, which included the molestation of a 14-year-old girl.

ā€œForty years is a long time,ā€ he said. “He’s run eight races, and this has never came up.”

Roger Ailes

Roger Ailes’ resignation in July 2016 as chairman of Fox News over sexual harassment allegations did not stop Trump, then a presidential candidate, from commenting on the scandal.  He praised Ailes as a “very, very good person” and cast doubt on Ailes’ accusers. “I can tell you that some of the women that are complaining, I know how much heā€™s helped them.”

Mike Tyson

This one goes way back to the early 1990’s when Mike Tyson faced up to 60 years in prison for raping an 18-year-old beauty queen. “I donā€™t know, after knowing Mike, I donā€™t know how it did happen,” Trump said at a 1992 press conference. “But it was a jury. It was a jury verdict.”

He then appeared to suggest that the victim should have settled with Tyson for millions in exchange for dropping criminal charges. “If your sister was raped by a millionaire, would you encourage her to accept a big bundle of cash to forget everything?”

Of course, Trump’s stance appears to shift, however, when the allegations are leveled at his perceived enemies. “Iā€™ve known him a long time, Iā€™m not surprised,” Trump said in October when asked about Harvey Weinstein, a Democrat.

One month before the election, Trump also hosted three of Bill Clinton’s accusers for a press conference. Many saw the stunt as an attempt to rattle Hillary Clinton less than two hours before a debate was set to take place.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate