U.S. cannot shield Trump from rape accuser's defamation lawsuit, judge rules

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Credo said:

The two situations are not mutually exclusive.  A person can press charges and the alleged perpetrator not found guilty.  That does not mean the allegation was not true, just that it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.   However, the penalties for making a false report are severe.   

 

You are essentially saying anytime there is a court case, someone must face jail.   So the loser would not even get a fair hearing.   A bit Middle Ages mentality in that thinking.  

 

 

No I'm not. I'm actually referring to frivolous claims that had no basis in fact or for which no proof is forthcoming. That not only wastes court's time, but can tarnish the accused's good name, as people can say "no smoke without fire".

Just claiming that someone did something decades ago without any proof is IMO frivolous.

 

I might have worded it differently, but I assumed readers would understand that was what I meant.

[Proboscis]

4 hours ago, donnacha said:

His "defamation" was that he denied raping her or, indeed, ever meeting her.

Bear in mind that the lady who claimed, during the run-up to the 2016 election, that he had molested her on a plane had, according to flight logs, never actually been on any plane at the same time as Trump.

This time, an unsuccessful writer alleges an assault a quarter-century ago. She never mentioned it until last year, by which time he was President, and she had a book to sell.

If it is true that the story is fabricated, it seems pretty clear that he would not have been targeted if he was not president. Remember, he has been in the public eye for 40 years. The real hate for him, and allegations of racism, only arose once it became clear that he was serious about running for president. So, it is not wildly wrong to say that this is a work-related situation.

Trump also noted that "she's not my type". As brutal as statement may be, we do actually know what his type is: Barbie-type models and blonde, big-boobed prostitutes. Essentially, the sexual tastes of a 14-year-old boy.

He also appears to be far from in control of these situations. Most men who sleep with a hooker pay, stumpf, and leave. That is the whole point. Trump, on the other hand, ended up paying Stormy Daniels not only for the sex but, also, a further $130,000 to shut up about it. He appears to have received poor value for money as she has now based a book and an international stand-up tour on that five-minute rut.

 

If it were just one case, I would kinda agree with you. But there are 18 women out there who claim that Donald Trump sexually assaulted them in some way or other. Some are as recent as the 2016 campaign. I cannot think of any politician (or anyone from any other profession) who has this level of accusations and is not looking at time in prison.

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely right IMO. Any one bringing a charge against another person that is false or cannot be proven should, IMO, be subject to the same penalty that would be given to the accused had they been convicted.

Filing a malicious charge is a criminal offense and rightly needs to be.

 

Filing a charge that cannot be proved is not and must not be a crime.

 

That a charge cannot be proven does not mean the offense did not take place.  Making filing a charge that cannot be proven a criminal offense would be great news for the rich and powerful, a sad day for justice and a very bad day for the vulnerable and poor.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No I'm not. I'm actually referring to frivolous claims that had no basis in fact or for which no proof is forthcoming. That not only wastes court's time, but can tarnish the accused's good name, as people can say "no smoke without fire".

Just claiming that someone did something decades ago without any proof is IMO frivolous.

 

I might have worded it differently, but I assumed readers would understand that was what I meant.

She has DNA.

 

Trump says he’s never met her.

 

The accusations are not frivolous.

 

It is Trump who is accused of tarnishing his accuser’s good name.

 

Trump could end this case easily by providing a DNA sample, but perhaps not end it as he hopes.

 

[Scott]

An inflammatory, troll post reported and removed.  

 

[newatthis]

56 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely right IMO. Any one bringing a charge against another person that is false or cannot be proven should, IMO, be subject to the same penalty that would be given to the accused had they been convicted.

And any person who pleads not guilty to an offense that they knowingly committed and then is convicted should be given a double penalty. They wasted precious resources and other peoples' time because they refused to take responsibility for their actions.

[Susco]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

That ruling could have allowed Carroll's lawyers to seek a DNA sample from Trump, to match against a dress Carroll said she wore at Bergdorf Goodman.

 

While I would have a hard time remembering what I wore 25 years ago on a particular day, even if I was raped on that day, or even still have those 25-year-old clothes in my possession, is it possible to have a credible DNA test on clothes that most likely have washed at least hundreds of times since then?

 

I hope nobody gonna reply here that she kept that dress untouched for 25 years, because she intended to sue Trump when he would become president 25 years later

Edited October 28, 2020 by Susco

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

While I would have a hard time remembering what I wore 25 years ago on a particular day, even if I was raped on that day, or even still have those 25-year-old clothes in my possession, is it possible to have a credible DNA test on clothes that most likely have washed at least hundreds of times since then?

 

I hope nobody gonna reply here that she kept that dress untouched for 25 years, because she intended to sue Trump when he would become president 25 years later

Obviously it hasn't been washed.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely right IMO. Any one bringing a charge against another person that is false or cannot be proven should, IMO, be subject to the same penalty that would be given to the accused had they been convicted.

Not a great idea. The threshold for conviction is a ver high bar. The accused is not found innocent, they are found not guilty. That doesnt mean they arent guilty, it means there is not enough evidence to convict.

 

By your proposal no one would ever accuse anyone and there would be a hell of a lot of rapists and kiddie fiddlers out there.

 

Any proven false accusations are already punishable. The smollet case had that.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Sujo

[Sujo]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No I'm not. I'm actually referring to frivolous claims that had no basis in fact or for which no proof is forthcoming. That not only wastes court's time, but can tarnish the accused's good name, as people can say "no smoke without fire".

Just claiming that someone did something decades ago without any proof is IMO frivolous.

 

I might have worded it differently, but I assumed readers would understand that was what I meant.

The donald can sue her. Why hasnt he.

[spidermike007]

Some can run from their past forever, and if they have enough money to continue hiring lawyers, and goons to protect them, they can stay safe, keep their reputations intact, and avoid jail. For some, the past eventually catches up.

 

I suspect Trump's past is going to be catching up with him, very soon. When he is unceremoniously ushered out of the White House in January, he is going to be returning to a white squall of problems, issues, the 3,600 lawsuits being litigated at the time he took office, and an ever declining mini business empire, (with the continuing annual losses) with a name so radioactive, it will have no monetary value, and nobody will ever again want to be associated with it ever again. He deeply deserves what is coming his way. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by spidermike007

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

While I would have a hard time remembering what I wore 25 years ago on a particular day, even if I was raped on that day, or even still have those 25-year-old clothes in my possession, is it possible to have a credible DNA test on clothes that most likely have washed at least hundreds of times since then?

 

I hope nobody gonna reply here that she kept that dress untouched for 25 years, because she intended to sue Trump when he would become president 25 years later

Nothing I wore 25 years ago would even fit me now, so long gone.

 

Agree with last sentence 100%. Anyway, she'd have to prove she had the item 25 years ago and didn't obtain it ( or the sample to be DNA tested ) somehow recently. I think any credible lawyer could dispose of that as proof, without a problem.

[donnacha]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

We actually know that FBI agents didn't conspire against Trump.

Those text messages are part of the public record. It has nothing to do with leaking news.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. If you believe that Trump has ANY support within the government agencies, apart from the bare minimum that is legally required, you are failing to perceive reality and nothing I can say will change that.

At this stage, none of this matters. It is unlikely that Trump will be re-elected, Biden will get to be president for a while. Magically, all of the Trump accusers will disappear. It will turn out that the Democrats have no more power over the virus than the Republicans did. The hard-left will end up feeling betrayed by Biden and hating him just as much as they did Trump. Harris will probably have to step in before the end of Biden's first term and, bang, that will be America's first female president, and the first Asian president.

Secretly, deep in your heart, you will miss Trump, you will miss the entertainment, you will miss how your rage made you feel alive for four all-too-short years. In 2028, in a moment of madness, you will find yourself voting for Ivanka.

 

[NanLaew]

6 hours ago, donnacha said:

Bear in mind that the lady who claimed, during the run-up to the 2016 election, that he had molested her on a plane had, according to flight logs, never actually been on any plane at the same time as Trump.

Yes, I agree. It's totally inconceivable that the Trump planes use the same type of flight logs as the Epstein planes.

[ballpoint]

3 hours ago, Emdog said:

When Donald gets turfed out, will taxpayers still be picking up tab for his despicable behavior?

Yes.  As they do for any other person in jail.

[NanLaew]

21 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The donald can sue her. Why hasnt he.

Fundamentally due to the same reason he won't show his tax returns.

[Surelynot]

Can he not just get this all bumped up to the Supreme Court.....then the problem will all go away?

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a U.S. government request to drop Donald Trump as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit by a writer who said the president falsely denied raping her in a Manhattan department store a quarter century ago.

Lock him up

[donnacha]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, I agree. It's totally inconceivable that the Trump planes use the same type of flight logs as the Epstein planes.

This was supposedly a regular, scheduled flight, before he owned a private jet.

All planes, private or otherwise, are required to log the confirmed names of all passengers with the aviation authorities before they take off. I guess you could bribe the pilot but, if caught, he would immediately and permanently lose his license.

 

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing I wore 25 years ago would even fit me now, so long gone.

 

Agree with last sentence 100%. Anyway, she'd have to prove she had the item 25 years ago and didn't obtain it ( or the sample to be DNA tested ) somehow recently. I think any credible lawyer could dispose of that as proof, without a problem.

Shouldnt be a problem because trump said he never met her.

[NanLaew]

5 minutes ago, donnacha said:

This was supposedly a regular, scheduled flight, before he owned a private jet.

All planes, private or otherwise, are required to log the confirmed names of all passengers with the aviation authorities before they take off. I guess you could bribe the pilot but, if caught, he would immediately and permanently lose his license.

 

Ah, so it was a commercial flight. That's OK then. People, especially the sort of women that are asking for it, are getting groped on them all the time.

[Chomper Higgot]

55 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

While I would have a hard time remembering what I wore 25 years ago on a particular day, even if I was raped on that day, or even still have those 25-year-old clothes in my possession, is it possible to have a credible DNA test on clothes that most likely have washed at least hundreds of times since then?

 

I hope nobody gonna reply here that she kept that dress untouched for 25 years, because she intended to sue Trump when he would become president 25 years later

Easily resolved, compel a DNA sample from Trump.

 

I say ‘compel’ because he’s unwilling to shoot the accusations down with s simple, painless swab test.

 

That said, he might become a tad more agreeable to a swift resolution of the case now that he’s paying his own defense costs.

[donnacha]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Ah, so it was a commercial flight. That's OK then. People, especially the sort of women that are asking for it, are getting groped on them all the time.

A commercial flight that the accuser was not on. Call me a traditionalist, but I believe that it takes two people to make molestation work.

The case you are sarkily defending disappeared in ignominy as soon as some basic research was done.
 

[Susco]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

59 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

While I would have a hard time remembering what I wore 25 years ago on a particular day, even if I was raped on that day, or even still have those 25-year-old clothes in my possession, is it possible to have a credible DNA test on clothes that most likely have washed at least hundreds of times since then?

 

I hope nobody gonna reply here that she kept that dress untouched for 25 years, because she intended to sue Trump when he would become president 25 years later

Easily resolved, compel a DNA sample from Trump.

 

I say ‘compel’ because he’s unwilling to shoot the accusations down with s simple, painless swab test.

 

That said, he might become a tad more agreeable to a swift resolution of the case now that he’s paying his own defense costs.

 

So you are saying that a DNA sample from Trump easily can be matched to a dress she wore 25 years ago?

 

Now I understand why you gave me that confused emoticon.

[Kerryd]

When I hear accusations being made 25+ years after the alleged event, accusations that seemingly were never reported to the police at the time and the victim apparently never went to a hospital but she held onto the dress she was wearing and it supposedly has "DNA" evidence on it, I get really suspicious.

Especially when the accusation comes out just before an election involving the alleged perpetrator.

Kind of like how, 11 days before the last election, the Director of the FBI suddenly announces they were looking into more of Hillary Clinton's emails and that became the number one topic for the rest of the election. You know, the one where she still won more votes than Trump but some rogue electors in the College of Electors cast their ballots for Trump instead.
(The FBI Director even admitted a couple years later that his decision to release the news about Clinton's emails at the time may have been influenced by his belief she was going to win the election.)
So he deliberately interfered in the process and as a result, Trump won. (Ironically, Trump fired Comey barely a year later for not helping him cover up the investigation into Russian interference in the previous election.)

And NO - not every woman who makes an accusation is actually a victim. To automatically assume they are is BS. Plenty of innocent men have been sent to prison or had their careers ruined because some woman felt jilted (or guilty about an affair).

And it's not just women who do it (or deny it). Over 20 years ago, the fake feminist Justin Trudeau groped a female reporter at a music festival. He thought she was some local working for a village paper and thought his name and looks might score him some strange. 

She wrote about immediately afterwards, but nothing happened (different times and no police report). 20 years later when Trudeau was PM of Canada, the report was unearthed (by reporters) and what was Trudeau's reaction ? He claimed that "people remember things differently" implying that she remembered the event differently than he did (and thus he was innocent of course), despite the fact she wrote about it right after it happened and he was being asked about it 20 years later. 

Trump, as we know, even bragged that he could just grab women "by the pussy" because he was a star.

I have no doubt that "back in the day" he probably didn't have to even try and women would be dropping their panties in front of him. Some of whom may now be deciding that there's money to be made and maybe things didn't quite happen the way they remembered after all.

His current wife was employed by a "modelling agency" that provides beautiful women to high end parties attended by the rich and powerful. Trump was at such a party with his (second) wife and when she went to the bathroom, he allegedly approached Melania and gave her his personal phone number. I'm sure he had no problem convincing Melania to do anything.
As we know, he ended up divorcing that wife and marrying Melania (who he apparently cheated on as well, with another "entertainer", while Melania was pregnant with their son).

I wouldn't doubt Trump has probably banged hundreds of women and probably doesn't remember half of them. I wouldn't doubt either that there are a lot of people trying to find some of those women and seeing if they can "convince" them that things didn't happen quite like they remember. 

Especially with an election just days away. A lot of power (and money) hanging in the balance.

[Greenside]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She has DNA.

 

Trump says he’s never met her.

 

The accusations are not frivolous.

 

It is Trump who is accused of tarnishing his accuser’s good name.

 

Trump could end this case easily by providing a DNA sample, but perhaps not end it as he hopes.

 

 

This summary gets to the heart of the matter.  If he's confident he didn't do as alleged, then supplying a DNA sample reduces it to a very simple set of possibilities:

1. They match and he most likely did as she claims.
2. They match and she's somehow cheating the system.
3. They don't match and his protestations of innocence look credible.

Surely all the rest of the stuff (his position, the role of the DoJ, who picks up the costs etc as well as the amount of harm his "defamation" has caused her) is not relevant until they're resolved and that's not going to happen in the next seven days.  If he loses, the suit will join the queue of others waiting in the wings and if (heaven forbid) he somehow hangs onto power it will be another "How on earth did he get away with it?" topic on ThaiVisa.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Secretly, deep in your heart, you will miss Trump, you will miss the entertainment, you will miss how your rage made you feel alive for four all-too-short years. In 2028, in a moment of madness, you will find yourself voting for Ivanka.

CNN will, IMO, miss Trump as what else will they have to attract viewers without Trump, Trump, Trump? He's great for their ratings. They certainly fill up a lot of program time with the anti Trump stuff, IMO.

[Blue Muton]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

Perhaps not ‘case over’ for him, which would explain why he’s fighting the case and has attempted to fight it on the taxpayer’s dime.

 

 

He's got tens if not hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in his pocket from him taking his entourage to his own resorts every other week. He could use a little of that.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

So you are saying that a DNA sample from Trump easily can be matched to a dress she wore 25 years ago?

 

Now I understand why you gave me that confused emoticon.

Lots of cold cases like that are now being solved. Keep in mind that DNA from Neanderthals can be recovered and decoded.

[placeholder]

Just now, placeholder said:

Lots of cold cases like that are now being solved. Keep in mind that DNA from Neanderthals can be recovered and decoded.

Just to be clear I was referencing Neanderthals not named Trump.