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

[Thingamabob]

I don't believe a word of this. I suspect it is the woman who will finish up in jail for lying.o

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

I don't believe a word of this. I suspect it is the woman who will finish up in jail for lying.o

I am pleased you have listened  to the evidence from both sides under oath, before making up your mind. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

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.

 

Got a crystal ball have you?

Tampered with the evidence? If her dress has a stain of sperm, you think she could manufacture the DNA that's found there? Or the traces of fluid? 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

5 hours ago, donnacha said:

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

In the knowledge he had a memory lapse about  a Stormy occasion that came to fore ?

"Realization" is way way behind a degree of  belief considering his  documented boasts of suspect behaviors.

His  lawyers probably have also suggested a comparison of  DNA would  validate his denial so why  not if the issue is damaging his efforts to continue to  denigrate the USA ?

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Got a crystal ball have you?

Tampered with the evidence? If her dress has a stain of sperm, you think she could manufacture the DNA that's found there? Or the traces of fluid? 

 

She bought it on the dark web from Stormy! ????

[IAMHERE]

I think this should be decided by the US Supreme Court. ????

[rabas]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Got a crystal ball have you?

Tampered with the evidence? If her dress has a stain of sperm, you think she could manufacture the DNA that's found there? Or the traces of fluid?

What fluid? They only found skin cells, on the sleeve, from at least 4 people. How often do you brush against something? Skin cells are everywhere, you shed 40,000 skin cells per minute, they are a major component of household dust.

 

[Greenside]

9 hours 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.

 

No need to fret.  With any luck the next eight years will be dominated by 24/7 coverage of the lawsuits, indictments, bankruptcy hearings, appeals, divorce and sentencing of you know who. 

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, rabas said:

What fluid? They only found skin cells, on the sleeve, from at least 4 people. How often do you brush against something? Skin cells are everywhere, you shed 40,000 skin cells per minute, they are a major component of household dust.

 

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Sujo]

11 hours ago, rabas said:

What fluid? They only found skin cells, on the sleeve, from at least 4 people. How often do you brush against something? Skin cells are everywhere, you shed 40,000 skin cells per minute, they are a major component of household dust.

 

But you dont often get trumps skin cells on you.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, rabas said:

What fluid? They only found skin cells, on the sleeve, from at least 4 people. How often do you brush against something? Skin cells are everywhere, you shed 40,000 skin cells per minute, they are a major component of household dust.

 

Sooooo, all the "big evidence" is are some skin cells that could have come from anywhere and been put on the sleeve.

Any half way lawyer could, IMO, demolish that "proof" easily, unless she sealed the clothing and had it secured by a lawyer all those years ago waiting for Trump to be a candidate for president.

Edited October 29, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[Phoenix Rising]

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, all the "big evidence" is are some skin cells that could have come from anywhere and been put on the sleeve.

Any half way lawyer could, IMO, demolish that "proof" easily, unless she sealed the clothing and had it secured by a lawyer all those years ago waiting for Trump to be a candidate for president.

Man, for a guy who claims not to be a trump supporter you sure do spend an incredible amount of time defending him. Makes me wonder what kind of hours you'd put in for a guy you actually supported!

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, all the "big evidence" is are some skin cells that could have come from anywhere and been put on the sleeve.

Any half way lawyer could, IMO, demolish that "proof" easily, unless she sealed the clothing and had it secured by a lawyer all those years ago waiting for Trump to be a candidate for president.

Which is irrelevant.

 

its a defamation case.

 

 

[Boomer6969]

On 10/28/2020 at 1:40 PM, donnacha said:

unless she can prove that he did rape

And how could she prove that?

 

This is why I am disturbed by most of these sexual abuse cases where the burden of proof becomes a totally abstract concept.These days, if you were a "healthy male" and are famous and rich, your are in danger of ending up in the slammer.

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, Boomer6969 said:

And how could she prove that?

 

This is why I am disturbed by most of these sexual abuse cases where the burden of proof becomes a totally abstract concept.These days, if you were a "healthy male" and are famous and rich, your are in danger of ending up in the slammer.

It's easy to pity the the poor, the ill, and the disadvantaged. But to sympathize with healthy, famous, and powerful males, that takes some powerful imagination. 

[stevenl]

31 minutes ago, Boomer6969 said:

And how could she prove that?

 

This is why I am disturbed by most of these sexual abuse cases where the burden of proof becomes a totally abstract concept.These days, if you were a "healthy male" and are famous and rich, your are in danger of ending up in the slammer.

But this is not a sexual abuse case, it is a defamation suit against private citizen Donald J. Trump.

[herfiehandbag]

On 10/28/2020 at 10:17 AM, 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

She may have kept the clothing, with the intention of using it for evidence, if and when she had the opportunity. She probably did not imagine (in her wildest dreams) that Mr Trump would become President.

 

25 years is indeed a long time - a third of a lifetime - but then what Mr Trump is accused of could be viewed as a life changing, perhaps life-destroying action, and they do say that revenge is a dish best served cold.

 

If she has DNA evidence to offer, Mr Trump can, if innocent, quickly refute the allegation by providing his DNA, I understand that a simple swab will suffice, no need to <Delete> into a bottle or any other equally disturbing image!

Edited October 29, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[Surelynot]

 

[LiamB80]

Executive privilege, judge overruled 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, LiamB80 said:

Executive privilege, judge overruled 

Executive privilege is about shielding Presidential advisors from being compelled to testify. It is not, as you apparently imagine, carte blanche immunizing the President against all legal processes.

[RJRS1301]

On 10/30/2020 at 4:01 AM, LiamB80 said:

Executive privilege, judge overruled 

I think his executive function is impaired to begin with.

[FarangULong]

On 10/27/2020 at 11:14 PM, RichardColeman said:

I am a believer that when it comes to the statute of limitations, there should be a limit of say 10 years to prosecute someone - re-instated on re-arrival to a country to stop you coming back after it runs out.

 

I am also a believer that the same statute of limitations should say that you cannot make allegations against somebody more than 5 years after the incident or 5 years after the age of 21 - unless in extreme cases of intimidation. We are ending up with people with dementia in court now accused of stuff 40 years ago in some cases.

 

 

 

 

I'm also a firm believer of shutting down the whole "believe all wamman" (yes, I know how to spell "women") <deleted>. And even more so, of punishing people with the same sentence the defendant would've gotten, if they make up an accusation.

 

Time and time again I've seen lives of men ruined, over allegations that turned out to be false and made up. Once the damage is done, it can never be reversed. Most of the time (if they can prove she lied or she confesses to making it up, and often it's a case of retroactive regret and/or cheating and claiming rape, to not have to fess up to their significant other, but not always.... ie just like here, the motive can also be financial, and it's extremely easy to win a civil case, compared to a criminal case, when it comes to such accusations, ie for damages) they rarely ever get real punishment. Recently I saw a case, where the woman went to the police with her fiancee, and accused a co-worker (who she'd been sleeping with consensually, but she didn't want to admit to cheating). She finally admitted to lying. The guy's life was ruined at that point. And what happened to her? 1 year sentence, most of it (if not at all, I don't remember all of it, I'll have to look it up again) on probation.

 

His sentence would've been FAR harsher, not to mention the damage done to his image. Even now, that he is "proclaimed" innocent, he has lost his job, if people google him the rape accusation will pop up (many won't bother to check further whether he was cleared or not; imo should be mandatory to edit the original articles to CLARIFY stuff like this retrospectively), etc....

 

And yes, all this <deleted> started with Trump, when he "betrayed" the Democratic party and decided to run. That's hwne the media darling became the target of smears, irrational hatred, etc.

 

As Jesse Lee Peterson would say.... UH MAAAH ZEEEEN....

[klikster]

On 10/28/2020 at 5:14 AM, RichardColeman said:

I am a believer that when it comes to the statute of limitations, there should be a limit of say 10 years to prosecute someone - re-instated on re-arrival to a country to stop you coming back after it runs out.

 

I am also a believer that the same statute of limitations should say that you cannot make allegations against somebody more than 5 years after the incident or 5 years after the age of 21 - unless in extreme cases of intimidation. We are ending up with people with dementia in court now accused of stuff 40 years ago in some cases.

 

 

 

 

Are you also a believer of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Superman ... ?

[FarangULong]

On 11/1/2020 at 12:38 PM, FarangULong said:

 And what happened to her? 1 year sentence, most of it (if not at all, I don't remember all of it, I'll have to look it up again) on probation.

 

His sentence would've been FAR harsher, not to mention the damage done to his image. Even now, that he is "proclaimed" innocent, he has lost his job, if people google him the rape accusation will pop up (many won't bother to check further whether he was cleared or not; imo should be mandatory to edit the original articles to CLARIFY stuff like this retrospectively), etc....

Since you can only edit within a certain time frame, here's the case I was talking about (there was also another one, not so long ago, where some blogger accused an Army Colonel, who was was about to be promoted to General and didn't, as a result - career effectively derailed - , and she barely got a slap on the wrist...). It was even far worse, than I had remembered. She was sentenced to THIRTY FIVE DAYS...:

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by FarangULong
added a sentence/factual correction

[placeholder]

On 11/1/2020 at 6:38 PM, FarangULong said:

I'm also a firm believer of shutting down the whole "believe all wamman" (yes, I know how to spell "women") <deleted>. And even more so, of punishing people with the same sentence the defendant would've gotten, if they make up an accusation.

 

Time and time again I've seen lives of men ruined, over allegations that turned out to be false and made up. Once the damage is done, it can never be reversed. Most of the time (if they can prove she lied or she confesses to making it up, and often it's a case of retroactive regret and/or cheating and claiming rape, to not have to fess up to their significant other, but not always.... ie just like here, the motive can also be financial, and it's extremely easy to win a civil case, compared to a criminal case, when it comes to such accusations, ie for damages) they rarely ever get real punishment. Recently I saw a case, where the woman went to the police with her fiancee, and accused a co-worker (who she'd been sleeping with consensually, but she didn't want to admit to cheating). She finally admitted to lying. The guy's life was ruined at that point. And what happened to her? 1 year sentence, most of it (if not at all, I don't remember all of it, I'll have to look it up again) on probation.

 

His sentence would've been FAR harsher, not to mention the damage done to his image. Even now, that he is "proclaimed" innocent, he has lost his job, if people google him the rape accusation will pop up (many won't bother to check further whether he was cleared or not; imo should be mandatory to edit the original articles to CLARIFY stuff like this retrospectively), etc....

 

And yes, all this <deleted> started with Trump, when he "betrayed" the Democratic party and decided to run. That's hwne the media darling became the target of smears, irrational hatred, etc.

 

As Jesse Lee Peterson would say.... UH MAAAH ZEEEEN....

8 hours ago, klikster said:

Are you also a believer of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Superman ... ?

To be fair he was talking about believing what should be the case, not what is the case. Tooth fairy believers definitely fall under the latter category.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by placeholder

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.  The thread is about a defamation lawsuit, not rape.  

 

 

[FarangULong]

14 hours ago, Scott said:

Please stay on topic.  The thread is about a defamation lawsuit, not rape.  

 

 

And the defamation suit is directly linked to some irrelevant "author" claiming she was raped, offering no proof whatsoever.

 

It's also - albeit indirectly - about how disgusting the civil litigation culture in the US is...

Edited November 3, 2020 by FarangULong

[FarangULong]

On 10/29/2020 at 6:39 AM, Phoenix Rising said:

Man, for a guy who claims not to be a trump supporter you sure do spend an incredible amount of time defending him. Makes me wonder what kind of hours you'd put in for a guy you actually supported!

Because that's what NORMAL people do, who are not suffering from <deleted> (or any other deranged, irrational hatred of someone).

 

They look at the facts, at the evidence (whether actual or circumstantial) and only then make up their mind. Rather than having pre-determined notions/judgements ready made on the shelf, like "I always knew he was a rapist, ever since he said 'grab em by the chatte' !!!!"...

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, FarangULong said:

Because that's what NORMAL people do, who are not suffering from <deleted> (or any other deranged, irrational hatred of someone).

 

They look at the facts, at the evidence (whether actual or circumstantial) and only then make up their mind. Rather than having pre-determined notions/judgements ready made on the shelf, like "I always knew he was a rapist, ever since he said 'grab em by the chatte' !!!!"...

Remember all those women that claimed Trump had done heinous things to them 4 years ago? They seem to have been very quiet since Trump won. I wonder why? Surely they could all have gone to court on the same basis as this woman.

According to one source ( I don't know if it is OK or not on TVF so won't name it or quote from it but the information is easily found with google ) there are 20 women, but one is his ex wife Ivana who later said it was "without merit" and "lawyer talk".

[Sujo]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Remember all those women that claimed Trump had done heinous things to them 4 years ago? They seem to have been very quiet since Trump won. I wonder why? Surely they could all have gone to court on the same basis as this woman.

According to one source ( I don't know if it is OK or not on TVF so won't name it or quote from it but the information is easily found with google ) there are 20 women, but one is his ex wife Ivana who later said it was "without merit" and "lawyer talk".

Trump said he would sue them, why hasnt he. Another lie.