Judge rules Trump has to stay quiet and not defend himself in court - Carroll Case

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Like it's not important to know when it happened, it wasn't all that traumatic apparently.

Why do you think it wasn't traumatic?

This just shows how out of touch and callous you are toward rape victims. It's no wonder most rape victims don't go to the police, but will talk with other women about it, and find support groups.

LOL, it was sarcasm. quite deep as well. My point was if a traumatic experience happens some folks remember every detail. Especially if they plan to use it later on for a check. (I think she's a lying opportunist, and while I'd like to think it's pure common sense, It's likely my bias as well about the way she acts)

originally posted by: matafuchs
He digitally raped her???? WTD is that.

It means he used his fingers.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Again, she had Trump's DNA on the dress she was wearing. - Court order for DNA. Trump cannot say no to that. It happens in criminal trials all the time....ohhhh....that's right it was a civil trial.

And, most women do NOT file police reports after being raped. The reasons are more than obvious. This has no bearing here. In most cases it is a family member or a co-worker. If DONALD TRUMP raped you why would you NOT go to the POLICE as high profile as he is? I know, because it nerver happened.

Finally, I do not a rape victim who would keep what she had on unless it was for a trial. I have had close friends and family members raped. They wanted NOTHING to do with what they would have had on let alone save it...that to me is sick on her part. Weird......

....if they can do it to him, they can do it to you..



just saying.

a reply to: matafuchs

Lets say your son is accused of rape.

YOu could do what Trump did.

Trump sues E Jean Carroll for defamation over rape comments

But I would advise that you do it before a court finds you guilty of sexual assault.

a reply to: Euronymous2625

FFS you are right. OK. Gotcha....I wasn't thinking of it like that because it was a slander not criminal suit

a reply to: Sookiechacha

and they threw his case out....BS>

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Trump is being sued for defamation, again. Every time he claims Carroll is lying, he's defaming her.

He has his day in court. Carroll claimed she had DNA evidence that proved Trump raped her. Trump asserted his 5th Amendment right to withhold his DNA. In civil court, that omission can be used against a defendant.

How does DNA on a dress prove she was raped?
DNA extraction has been shown to work for a mere touch of a few seconds.
If this was evidence then a touch on the shoulder or hug could be used to insulate rape.

The case was a complete sham. It was her word against his and nothing more.
The finding of the jury was a simple case of 'get Trump' and yet another example of the judicial system being politicised.
You may cheer that on now, but the same people doing so are the ones calling the Supreme Court corrupt and calling for resignation and even indictments because Roe vs Wade was overturned. Where was their blind faith in the impartiality of the judicial system then?

a reply to: matafuchs

Finally, I do not a rape victim who would keep what she had on unless it was for a trial. I have had close friends and family members raped. They wanted NOTHING to do with what they would have had on let alone save it...that to me is sick on her part. Weird......

What if your close friend's rapist was running for mayor, or police chief, or senator? Would you want her to keep his secret, or would you approve of her saying something about it, even if it was a long time ago?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Trump is being sued for defamation, again. Every time he claims Carroll is lying, he's defaming her.

He has his day in court. Carroll claimed she had DNA evidence that proved Trump raped her. Trump asserted his 5th Amendment right to withhold his DNA. In civil court, that omission can be used against a defendant.

How does DNA on a dress prove she was raped?
DNA extraction has been shown to work for a mere touch of a few seconds.
If this was evidence then a touch on the shoulder or hug could be used to insulate rape.

HAHA Tell that to Bill Clinton!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Trump is being sued for defamation, again. Every time he claims Carroll is lying, he's defaming her.

He has his day in court. Carroll claimed she had DNA evidence that proved Trump raped her. Trump asserted his 5th Amendment right to withhold his DNA. In civil court, that omission can be used against a defendant.

How does DNA on a dress prove she was raped?
DNA extraction has been shown to work for a mere touch of a few seconds.
If this was evidence then a touch on the shoulder or hug could be used to insulate rape.

HAHA Tell that to Bill Clinton!

Bill Clintons semen was found on Monica Lewinsky's dress.

Not so in this case

After refusing to provide a DNA sample, Trump’s lawyers switched tactics, saying they would provide one if Carroll’s lawyers turned over the full DNA report on the dress.

But Kaplan said Trump had provided no persuasive reason to relieve him of the consequences of his failure to seek the full DNA report in a timely fashion.

The judge also noted that the report did not find evidence of sperm cells and that reopening the dispute would raise a “complicated new subject into this case that both sides elected not to pursue over a period of years”.

He said a positive match of Trump’s DNA to that on the dress would prove only that there had been an encounter between Trump and Carroll on a day when she wore the dress, but would not prove or disprove that a rape occurred and might prove entirely inconclusive.

It was the judge who actually killed the process of the provision of DNA and it was because it provided zero value because there were no sperm cells detected on the dress and the ONLY change it would make would be to exonerate Trump with a negative match. A positive match meant nada.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your question makes no sense. You make it like I do not want a victim to say anything. I did not say keep anything secrets. I said they would want nothing to do with anything from the scene.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: matafuchs

This is completely nuts. So, he cannot say he did not do something he did NOT do and was NOT convicted of??????

He had the opportunity to defend himself during the trial. Carroll claimed she was raped, and said that she still had the soiled dress she was wearing that day, that it had Trump's DNA on it. The court said Trump could refute her claim by submitting a DNA sample. He refused, so the judge said he couldn't revisit the rape assertion since he refused to submit a DNA sample.

Same tactic - - - prove it wrong or you're guilty. ☢️

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Up to "zi Staate" to prove guilt. 😀

a reply to: UKTruth

It was the judge who actually killed the process of the provision of DNA and it was because it provided zero value because there were no sperm cells detected on the dress and the ONLY change it would make would be to exonerate Trump with a negative match.

There's more to the story.
The Judge told Trump he missed his chance to clear his name by using DNA, after he backtracked on his refusal to do so.

Donald Trump missed his chance to use his DNA to try to prove he did not rape the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal judge said on Wednesday, clearing a potential roadblock to an April trial.

Carroll’s lawyers have sought Trump’s DNA for three years to compare it with stains found on the dress Carroll wore the day she says Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996. Analysis of DNA on the dress concluded it did contain traces of an unknown man’s DNA.

There's more! Trump's legal team switched tactics, and now they wanted to use the DNA.

After refusing to provide a DNA sample, Trump’s lawyers switched tactics, saying they would provide one if Carroll’s lawyers turned over the full DNA report on the dress.

But Kaplan said Trump had provided no persuasive reason to relieve him of the consequences of his failure to seek the full DNA report in a timely fashion.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not many view Caroll as a victim.


Probably because of that no evidence/no police report thing.....

Again, she had Trump's DNA on the dress she was wearing.

And, most women do NOT file police reports after being raped. The reasons are more than obvious.

How do you know it's Trumps DNA?

Yes, I get why most are not filed (not that the actual number could be possibly produced). Yet in this case, the timing and politics become suspect and apparent.

You simply can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth

It was the judge who actually killed the process of the provision of DNA and it was because it provided zero value because there were no sperm cells detected on the dress and the ONLY change it would make would be to exonerate Trump with a negative match.

There's more to the story.
The Judge told Trump he missed his chance to clear his name by using DNA, after he backtracked on his refusal to do so.

Donald Trump missed his chance to use his DNA to try to prove he did not rape the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal judge said on Wednesday, clearing a potential roadblock to an April trial.

Carroll’s lawyers have sought Trump’s DNA for three years to compare it with stains found on the dress Carroll wore the day she says Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996. Analysis of DNA on the dress concluded it did contain traces of an unknown man’s DNA.

There's more! Trump's legal team switched tactics, and now they wanted to use the DNA.

After refusing to provide a DNA sample, Trump’s lawyers switched tactics, saying they would provide one if Carroll’s lawyers turned over the full DNA report on the dress.

But Kaplan said Trump had provided no persuasive reason to relieve him of the consequences of his failure to seek the full DNA report in a timely fashion.

www.theguardian.com...

I already posted that.
Your links confirm what I already said.
The JUDGE quashed the process of DNA provision, not Trump.
You are correct in that the only use of the DNA would be to unequivocally clear Trumps name. Once it was shown there was no sperm cells on the dress it was clear to the judge that the provision of DNA was entirely in Trumps favour and offered zero value against him - which is why the judge stopped it I would presume.

Nothing like the Clinton case where sperm cells were found on the dress.

a reply to: matafuchs

The term, "Banana Republic" comes to mind.

a reply to: UKTruth

I did not link that tidbit but you are very correct on that. Just straight up shady.

a reply to: UKTruth

It was stopped because since no sperm cells were found, any DNA would essentially be worthless to the case. It couldn't implicate Trump but it also couldn't exonerate him.