17 hours ago, webfact said:

If the dress does contain traces of Trump’s DNA, it would not prove his guilt

i'm completely lost, but plz, don't tell me it'd prove his innocence!

2 hours ago, Pique Dard said:

i'm completely lost, but plz, don't tell me it'd prove his innocence!

It cannot prove guilt. He simply says it was consensual.

 

Now if he says he didnt do anything and his dna is there then thats a different issue.

3 hours ago, lungbing said:

And maybe she dislikes his politics and is trying to smear him politically.

He isnt in politics, he holds no office.

Just now, Sujo said:

He isnt in politics, he holds no office.

Because he lost. Bigly. 

14 hours ago, helpisgood said:

 

Great question!

 

(BTW, it's a statute of limitations.  Very common misspelling.  I am a bad speller myself.) 

 

You may thus find the following article interesting:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321

 

Also, I am sure that this would have come up right when the lawsuit, now being litigated, was first filed.  The Defense and/or the Court would have  noticed quickly that the "statute was blown."  One or more attorneys would have then been concerned about their license(s) to practice law and/or fines, etc.  In short, a big deal.      

Interesting article. However, my concern is that it seems that women can make a claim that something happened so long ago that it might be impossible to prove, yet the man is tarnished ( I'm speaking in general- not specifically about Trump ) for all time. I'd like to see a law brought in tandem that if a woman makes a claim that can't be proven, she is guilty of defamation, herself. I suppose a man found not guilty could sue, but many would not be able to afford a good lawyer.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Interesting article. However, my concern is that it seems that women can make a claim that something happened so long ago that it might be impossible to prove, yet the man is tarnished ( I'm speaking in general- not specifically about Trump ) for all time. I'd like to see a law brought in tandem that if a woman makes a claim that can't be proven, she is guilty of defamation, herself. I suppose a man found not guilty could sue, but many would not be able to afford a good lawyer.

There are already laws covering maliciously filing police reports.

 

Your suggestion that there should be punishment for reporting something that can’t be proven is ridiculous and dangerous.

 

It’s also depressingly predicable.

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Its 1000 cuts time for the disgraced former president guy.

Rather insulting language for the former President.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are already laws covering maliciously filing police reports.

 

Your suggestion that there should be punishment for reporting something that can’t be proven is ridiculous and dangerous.

 

It’s also depressingly predicable.

 

Don't knock it off....wouldn't "punishment for reporting something that can't be proven" apply to many of Trump's own statements, complaints and whatnot?

22 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Rather insulting language for the former President.

????

 

Indeed, all the more so when the former President was well known for his manners, politeness and......

On 2/24/2021 at 7:13 AM, Jeffr2 said:

Sad when people bash an old lady. And praise a misogynist. Stunning.

 

This would be the trial of the century. Maybe Trump will bring back Rudy for entertainment. Dripping hair dye and all! LOL

 

 

Some, not all, Trumpers know no bounds when it comes to the depths of their hate for anyone not duped by #45.

 

Part of #45's defense is the lady in question is not #45's type.    The photo used in this thread is hardly flattering of her.

 

E. Jean Carroll:

 

 

 

 

e jean.webp

A series of off-topic diversion posts have been removed.

 

The topic here is:

 

Trump may soon have to answer rape allegations under oath

 

On 2/24/2021 at 5:28 PM, Sujo said:

It cannot prove guilt. He simply says it was consensual.

 

Now if he says he didnt do anything and his dna is there then thats a different issue.

give me the name of one rapist saying it wasn't consensual

On 2/24/2021 at 11:28 PM, Sujo said:

It cannot prove guilt. He simply says it was consensual.

 

Now if he says he didnt do anything and his dna is there then thats a different issue.

His DNA on the dress would prove that he is lying, because he claims that he never met the woman.

Ahh he even has bigger problems now,the NY DA has his tax returns now it’s gonna hit the fan bigley now lol popcorn time!!

8 hours ago, Pique Dard said:

give me the name of one rapist saying it wasn't consensual

The ones that plead guilty are admitting it wasnt consensual, by definition. How many thousand names do you want?

 

A dna match by itself proves nothing except he was there, it is not evidence of guilt for anything. 

 

Simply saying a person is guilty because his dna was on her is blatantly wrong. If your wife is murdered and they find your dna in the home does that make you guilty?

 

what part of that do you not understand.

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

His DNA on the dress would prove that he is lying, because he claims that he never met the woman.

But it doesnt prove guilt. Dna alone is not worth much.

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2021 at 6:47 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Another nothing story, an old lady trying to cash in and get a sec in the spotlight.

Trump is going down:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-just-got-millions-of-pages-of-trump-documents-his-taxes-are-just-the-beginning/ar-BB1e1sMs?ocid=spartanntp

 

Send him some money, he will need it. 

 

3 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Trump is going down:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-just-got-millions-of-pages-of-trump-documents-his-taxes-are-just-the-beginning/ar-BB1e1sMs?ocid=spartanntp

 

Send him some money, he will need it. 

 

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Ahh he even has bigger problems now,the NY DA has his tax returns now it’s gonna hit the fan bigley now lol popcorn time!!

Will you and Racheal share the popcorn?

40 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

Will you and Racheal share the popcorn?

At least Rachel tries to expose the lies and corruption. Unlike the fake news right wing media outlets that just try to deflect and cover it up.

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Trump is going down:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-just-got-millions-of-pages-of-trump-documents-his-taxes-are-just-the-beginning/ar-BB1e1sMs?ocid=spartanntp

 

Send him some money, he will need it. 

 

It's going to be fun!

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Trump is going down:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-just-got-millions-of-pages-of-trump-documents-his-taxes-are-just-the-beginning/ar-BB1e1sMs?ocid=spartanntp

 

Send him some money, he will need it. 

 

Thats a huge batch of docs.

Clinton or Trump..LOL

Oh they are talking about yet another woman coming forward regarding the ex-reality TV show host. I thought it was about his voters getting 'raped' once his term is over and nothing was really done as he promised. Jokes on you. I didn't say it, Mr. President did.

Troll post and reply removed.

 

There is an exciting new development in the case that Fulton Co. GA District Attorney Fani Wills is preparing against Trump, Giuliani, and others.  She has retained John Floyd, a lawyer and professor who literally wrote the book on racketeering prosecutions in Georgia.  This news implies that D.A. Wills is investigating racketeering charges and Trump and the others.  Under GA law racketeering charges can be brought for a wider range of criminal activity than in other states or at the federal level.  You have committed a racketeering offense in GA if you lie to two state officials in the furtherance of criminal actions.  And the sweet part is that the penalty is up to twenty years in prison.  

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/politics/john-floyd-hired-fulton-county-prosecutor-racketeering/index.html

Trump is likely to face multiple criminal charges not only in GA and NY, but possibly in DC and federal charges in the Southern District of NY.  So, it is virtually certain that pretty soon Trump will be compelled to be present at a bail hearing before a judge in one of these cases.  Since Trump presents a high risk of flight, that judge may order pre-trial detention on the spot which could mean that Trump would not regain his freedom for years or even decades.

Exciting times.

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2021 at 3:27 PM, Jeffr2 said:

It's going to be fun!

More fun:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/manhattan-prosecutors-intensifying-probe-into-trumps-new-york-estate-report/ar-BB1eqnsh?ocid=spartandhp

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-york-supreme-court-tosses-trump-defamation-lawsuit-against-nyt/ar-BB1eqk97?ocid=spartandhp