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

originally posted by: Threadbarer
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.

It could have exonerated him because it would prove that Carroll was lying.
Correct that it could not implicate him on the accusations being made.
In other words it became useless to one side and a potential game changer to the other - so the judge decided it could bot be pursued.

a reply to: UKTruth

which is why the judge stopped it I would presume.

No. If you read it, this was a delay tactic. It was a motion that was presented to the Judge by Trump's attorney's. The judge denied it because the judge wanted to avoid any further delays.

He said it would almost surely delay the trial scheduled to start on 25 April to reopen the DNA issue four months after the deadline passed to litigate concerns over trial evidence and weeks before trial.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth

which is why the judge stopped it I would presume.

No. If you read it, this was a delay tactic. It was a motion that was presented to the Judge by Trump's attorney's. The judge denied it because the judge wanted to avoid any further delays.

He said it would almost surely delay the trial scheduled to start on 25 April to reopen the DNA issue four months after the deadline passed to litigate concerns over trial evidence and weeks before trial.

Firstly, your whataboutism with the Clinton case has been debunked.
Secondly, the fact remains that Trump did indeed agree to provide a DNA sample but the judge refused. That's a fact. You can speculate about Trump's lawyers tactics all you like, but your assertion that Trump refused to provide a DNA sample has also been debunked.

a reply to: UKTruth

Secondly, the fact remains that Trump did indeed agree to provide a DNA sample but the judge refused.

Yeah, after he refused for 3 long years, and 4 months after the legal deadline to do so!

You can speculate about Trump's lawyers tactics all you like

That's not my speculation. Those are the judge's words.

FACT Trump missed his chance to use DNA to prove Carroll a liar. Every time he continues to call her liar, he continues to defame her.

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
a reply to: matafuchs

That E Jean Carroll case had no direct evidence and no forensics evidence. All hearsay and speculation and assumptive conclusions. 😀

She didn't even have a stained dress to hold on to.

Why wouldn't a woman that was raped by one of the most powerful men save any evidence from the rape?

She seems quite assertive and capable, to me. Certainly doesn't come across as a wallflower.

Heck, she's out there hitting the media on her own. Whyd she wait so long?

Isn’t there a statute of limitations on rape in New York? I seem to remember Cuomo extending statute to 20 years in 2019.

Didn’t Carrol claim she was raped by Trump in 1996?

What am I missing here?

a reply to: Enduro

Special laws were made....

a reply to: Enduro

The Adult Survivors Act (ASA) is New York State legislation enacted in May 2022 which amends state law to allow alleged victims of sexual offenses for which the statute of limitations has lapsed to file civil suits for a one-year period, from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023.

Source

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Enduro

Special laws were made....

Ahhh it WAS rigged at high levels! 😀

a reply to: WingDingLuey

that's a bingo.

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.

If all it takes is DNA on a dress to prve rape, then Bill Clinton could have been convicted of rape, too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

You mean Trump could sue every person who said he is a LIAR? Where should he start?

originally posted by: nugget1

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.

If all it takes is DNA on a dress to prve rape, then Bill Clinton could have been convicted of rape, too.

He could have. But Monica Lewinsky never made that claim.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth

Secondly, the fact remains that Trump did indeed agree to provide a DNA sample but the judge refused.

Yeah, after he refused for 3 long years, and 4 months after the legal deadline to do so!

You can speculate about Trump's lawyers tactics all you like

That's not my speculation. Those are the judge's words.

FACT Trump missed his chance to use DNA to prove Carroll a liar. Every time he continues to call her liar, he continues to defame her.

Dna, but not semen?
She never testified Trump ejaculated.
So what gives?
How easy would it be to acquire and place it on the dress?
Would that be as simple as wiping a water glass used by Trump on it?

My personal opinion is they need to identify that the Trump in the courtroom is actually Trump and not one of the body doubles.
If they could verify it's him instead of the real Trump tucked away in Cheyenne mtn. safe from assassination they would nuke the courthouse to stop him.
DNA on a dress 20 years old and saved.
I have such a very hard time believing how that could be true.
Just to later prove he digitally raped her.
20 years....
Her gumour was always sexual in nature in the skits she participated in.
She must have been severely traumatized huh?
With no stains how would she know she had his DNA?
And never wash it?
What a crazy story

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.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Not that I like trump, because I don't. If the case is, "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."

Then any woman who had consensual sex with a man, can convict him, by merely saying he raped her and having his DNA on her clothing. In other words, things get messy when you're having consensual or non consensual sex, and having a man's DNA on your clothes does not mean the woman was raped.

a reply to: Unknownparadox

Then any woman who had consensual sex with a man, can convict him, by merely saying he raped her and having his DNA on her clothing.

She doesn't need to have a piece of clothing if the evidence is inside her.
All he has to do is claim it was consensual. Happens all the time.

a reply to: matafuchs

Im confused because I was under the impression her allegations took place in 1996. Did she keep the clothes with the DNA on it since 1996 in a vacuum sealed bag or something? Did this happen much later? Seems like kind of a hassle to store a dress with DNA on it and keep it from being contaminated for decades. Would make more sense if she immediately went to the police with it when it happened. So my confusion is.....when did this rape occur?

a reply to: Shoshanna

So my confusion is.....when did this rape occur?

It didn’t, that’s the entire scam by the con artists.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: nugget1

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.

If all it takes is DNA on a dress to prve rape, then Bill Clinton could have been convicted of rape, too.

He could have. But Monica Lewinsky never made that claim.

Too bad; she really should have. So should all of the other women that were paid to be silenced. Same with Biden, but they've got the DNC get out of jail frre card.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Unknownparadox

Then any woman who had consensual sex with a man, can convict him, by merely saying he raped her and having his DNA on her clothing.

She doesn't need to have a piece of clothing if the evidence is inside her.
All he has to do is claim it was consensual. Happens all the time.

Wait.
Are you now claiming Trump ejaculated?
I thought he only fingers her.
Receipts please.
You are lying