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

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

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.

Exactly right, IMO.

6 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

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.

That's the point I was making before the 2016 election when those women were accusing him of bad things.

Why would any rich man have to force a woman to have sex when there are so many groupies around?

[Eric Loh]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Acting at the behest of Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice moved the case to federal court, where it said Trump acted in his official capacity when denying Carroll's claims, and thus could not be sued personally for defamation.

Sick move by lackey Barr to move the case to the federal court and use tax payer money to pay for Trump's sexual exploit legal costs.    

[Susco]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

 

No it is not the same at all.

 

The Neanderthals ARE the DNA, the dress which is subject to this topic, is supposed to have kept the DNA of a third party attached to it intact for 25 years.

 

As you can notice from my post history, I am obviously not a Trump supporter, quite the opposite actually, but claiming that a dress hasn't been cleaned for 25 years, as that would be the only way to keep the DNA attached to it intact, is simply ridiculous, and so are those that defend those claims.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Susco

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

No it is not the same at all.

 

The Neanderthals ARE the DNA, the dress which is subject to this topic, is supposed to have kept the DNA of a third party attached to it intact for 25 years.

 

As you can notice from my post history, I am obviously not a Trump supporter, quite the opposite actually, but claiming that a dress has been cleaned for 25 years is simply ridiculous, and so are those that defend those claims

Who says it's been cleaned?

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

No it is not the same at all.

 

The Neanderthals ARE the DNA, the dress which is subject to this topic, is supposed to have kept the DNA of a third party attached to it intact for 25 years.

 

As you can notice from my post history, I am obviously not a Trump supporter, quite the opposite actually, but claiming that a dress hasn't been cleaned for 25 years, as that would be the only way to keep the DNA attached to it intact, is simply ridiculous, and so are those that defend those claims.

 

 

 

The DNA issue is quite straightforward:

 

The DNA is recoverable or it is not.

The recovered DNA is a match to Trump or it is not.

 

Trump’s accuser’s legal team have submitted statements to the court that DNA has been recovered.

 

 

 

[Kelsall]

Yet another nothing burger.

[Mayhem11]

5 hours ago, donnacha said:

I see. So, it would be better for the office of the President of the United States of America if the president does not deny accusations of rape from random people?
 

Their position was that the accusation would clearly not have been made if he was not in that job.

It is the same as death threats against the president. They spend tens of millions every year evaluating and investigating the roughly one thousand death threats per month that every president receives. The supposed "most powerful man in the world" draws a lot of attention from kooks, regardless of who is actually in the office.

Elderly white upper class women feel bitterly aggrieved that this particular president beat their great hope, Hillary, so, it is natural that some would go kamikaze. Fortunately, nothing has come out of any of the allegations, not contemporaneous notes by the alleged victims, not even witnesses who saw them together. Remarkable when you consider how famous he was even then and how this particular incident is alleged to have happened in a busy department store.

So, yes. If you suffer an attack due to the office you hold, your employer has a duty to defend you.

 

Wow one bitter chappie are you. Just one legal issue. An employer is not obliged to defend a criminal act such as rape or defamation. Such slight of hand to suggest there is any comparison between an employer and an employee and a politician.

[stevenl]

2 hours 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

Were you raped on that day 25 years ago?

 

Would you wear clothes again after being raped?

[Susco]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

She has not made any complaint to police about rape. He is not charged with rape. So she hasnt waited 25 years to make a police report because she hasnt made one.

 

No she didn't make a police report that Trump raped her, she only made that claim public in a book which probably was sold worldwide

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Yet another nothing burger.

A nothing burger with sauce, possibly.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

No she didn't make a police report that Trump raped her, she only made that claim public in a book which probably was sold worldwide

Correct. And trump said he never met her, which he has, and called her a liar. Thats all this is about.

 

simply finding dna does not prove rape, but it proves they met when she wore it.

[AgMech Cowboy]

6 hours ago, Tug said:

let the lady be heard see if the accusation is true or not but don’t get the doj involved in defending donald let him defend himself let the case run it’s course Just because he is potus shouldent  shield him from accusations of rape

She has been heard. Anderson Cooper even interviewed her. He couldn't wait to get off the set when it finished. She was just drumming up noise for her book.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

She has been heard. Anderson Cooper even interviewed her. He couldn't wait to get off the set when it finished. She was just drumming up noise for her book.

‘Heard in court’ 

 

Understand yet?!

[RJRS1301]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Judge Lewis Kaplan

Kiss good bye to any  appointments from GOP, and never make it it SCOTUS now.

 

[donnacha]

16 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

She has been heard. Anderson Cooper even interviewed her. He couldn't wait to get off the set when it finished. She was just drumming up noise for her book.

I feel that, if all the people defending her claims would just watch that Anderson Cooper interview, which I posted earlier in this thread, they would understand how flaky her story actually is. All the buzz around her printed allegations evaporated after that interview.

In their rush to stab Trump one last time as he exits the stage, the mindless partisans here on TVF are accidentally supporting the concept that it is okay for a woman to accuse a man of rape, causing maximum damage to his reputation, but not bring him to court so that he defend himself against that charge. Instead, sue him for defamation when he dares to say he didn't do it, knowing that such a claim cannot succeed in court anyway, but dragging out your time in the sun.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by donnacha

[RJRS1301]

I am little skeptical regarding the dress and the DNA claim

Dress kept and not cleaned for 25yrs and not worn again?

Proof that that was the dress worn on the day of the alleged incident?

  

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I feel that, if all the people defending her claims would just watch that Anderson Cooper interview, which I posted earlier in this thread, they would understand how flaky her story actually is. All the buzz around her printed allegations evaporated after that interview.

In their rush to stab Trump one last time as he exits the stage, the mindless partisans here on TVF are accidentally supporting the concept that it is okay for a woman to accuse a man of rape, causing maximum damage to his reputation, but not bring him to court so that he defend himself against that charge. Instead, sue him for defamation when he dares to say he didn't do it, knowing that such a claim cannot succeed in court anyway, but dragging out your time in the sun.

 

Its ok if he said he didnt do it. But he said he never met her and she is a liar.

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I feel that, if all the people defending her claims would just watch that Anderson Cooper interview, which I posted earlier in this thread, they would understand how flaky her story actually is. All the buzz around her printed allegations evaporated after that interview.

In their rush to stab Trump one last time as he exits the stage, the mindless partisans here on TVF are accidentally supporting the concept that it is okay for a woman to accuse a man of rape, causing maximum damage to his reputation, but not bring him to court so that he defend himself against that charge. Instead, sue him for defamation when he dares to say he didn't do it, knowing that such a claim cannot succeed in court anyway, but dragging out your time in the sun.

 

If he only had said 'i did not rape her', there would be no defamation suit.

[Rimmer]

A baiting post has been removed

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

CNN & Co. will be compensated  by the resumption and introduction of many legal claims directed at Trump to be sure.

The  Circus  will continue either way post election.

 

[Susco]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its ok if he said he didnt do it. But he said he never met her and she is a liar.

 

Do you remember everyone you met 2 decades ago at a party, and was probably there just as a partner of someone else?

 

I certainly don't.

 

I even sometimes meet people who say hello to me, and even know may name however I'm not famous, and I can't figure where I ever met them much less their name

[Dumbastheycome]

2 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

Do you remember everyone you met 2 decades ago at a party, and was probably there just as a partner of someone else?

 

I certainly don't.

 

I even sometimes meet people who say hello to me, and even know may name however I'm not famous, and I can't figure where I ever met them much less their name

Yet in his denial of who she is/was and never met he can refer to who he believes she was married  to?

[donnacha]

37 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its ok if he said he didnt do it. But he said he never met her and she is a liar.

 

35 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If he only had said 'i did not rape her', there would be no defamation suit.

So, he's climbing onto a helicopter, the reporters are firing questions at him, he said "I have no idea who this woman is", that the charges against him were "totally false" and that she had made similar charges against other men.

It turns out, as the 1987 photo I posted here showed, that they had met but at one of those semi-pro parties where a celebrity works the rooms and meets lots of people. No court would expect him, after 23 years, to have any idea who she was. There is no defamation there.

It is factually true that she had made similar charges against other men. He did not make any comment on the veracity of those charges. There is no defamation there.

The only allegation he called "totally false" was the one against him. That is not defamation unless she can prove that he did rape her, in which case she should be pursuing a case on that.

The problem with placing your political credibility on someone like this is that people notice. You can enjoy ragging on Trump but, after her case collapses, people will slowly come to associate leftist politics with wild accusations and cynical opportunism. It is quite something when, as a party, you become so detested that even a narcist such as Trump appears principled by comparison. 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by donnacha

[donnacha]

6 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Yet in his denial of who she is/was and never met he can refer to who he believes she was married  to?

Because his lawyers had just briefed him on the allegation. How come you didn't realize that?

[placeholder]

31 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I feel that, if all the people defending her claims would just watch that Anderson Cooper interview, which I posted earlier in this thread, they would understand how flaky her story actually is. All the buzz around her printed allegations evaporated after that interview.

In their rush to stab Trump one last time as he exits the stage, the mindless partisans here on TVF are accidentally supporting the concept that it is okay for a woman to accuse a man of rape, causing maximum damage to his reputation, but not bring him to court so that he defend himself against that charge. Instead, sue him for defamation when he dares to say he didn't do it, knowing that such a claim cannot succeed in court anyway, but dragging out your time in the sun.

 

All Trump has to do is submit a sample of his DNA. 

[donnacha]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

All Trump has to do is submit a sample of his DNA. 

Why should he?

He is not being charged with rape. She is taking a civil case for defamation that will almost certainly be abandoned after the election.

You do not perform a role in the script of someone who is trying to damage you.

DNA samples are associated in the public mind with rape charges. If she wants to charge him with rape, she should do that, but will face jail time if she is found to have lied or tampered with evidence. All this noise about DNA is simply a way to inflict the reputational damage of a rape charge in without the risk of making an actual rape charge.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by donnacha

[Emdog]

3 hours ago, ballpoint said:

6 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.

You seem to have no knowledge of US courts. "Any other person in jail"? Really? You could not be more wrong on that. Ever hear of OJ Simpson? I rest my case.

[Sujo]

49 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Because his lawyers had just briefed him on the allegation. How come you didn't realize that?

So he lied. All he had to say was he doesnt remember her and never raped her.

[stevenl]

48 minutes ago, donnacha said:

 

So, he's climbing onto a helicopter, the reporters are firing questions at him, he said "I have no idea who this woman is", that the charges against him were "totally false" and that she had made similar charges against other men.

It turns out, as the 1987 photo I posted here showed, that they had met but at one of those semi-pro parties where a celebrity works the rooms and meets lots of people. No court would expect him, after 23 years, to have any idea who she was. There is no defamation there.

It is factually true that she had made similar charges against other men. He did not make any comment on the veracity of those charges. There is no defamation there.

The only allegation he called "totally false" was the one against him. That is not defamation unless she can prove that he did rape her, in which case she should be pursuing a case on that.

The problem with placing your political credibility on someone like this is that people notice. You can enjoy ragging on Trump but, after her case collapses, people will slowly come to associate leftist politics with wild accusations and cynical opportunism. It is quite something when, as a party, you become so detested that even a narcist such as Trump appears principled by comparison. 

 

Nothing to do with political credibility, leftistpolitics or cynical opportunism.

 

He has been accused of defamation, and tried to weasel out of it at expense of the tax payer. So far courts are not going along with that, imo justifiably so. Court case to follow, looking at the available information he will be cleared. End of, except I would expect Trump to counter sue.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Susco said:

 

Do you remember everyone you met 2 decades ago at a party, and was probably there just as a partner of someone else?

 

I certainly don't.

 

I even sometimes meet people who say hello to me, and even know may name however I'm not famous, and I can't figure where I ever met them much less their name

and i certainly dont remember. Thats why i would say i dont recall.