• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump’s DNA, but not deposition, sought in defamation suit (1 Viewer)

The only thing Trump cheats on more than his wife of the moment, are his taxes.

Long term, that's a deadly combination.
 
The only thing Trump cheats on more than his wife of the moment, are his taxes.

Long term, that's a deadly combination.



The guy likely holds the all-time record for American with the most litigation in the categories of current litigation and all-time litigation, probably in each of the sub-categories of plaintiff and defendant. That is a lot of dubious records. He has likely paid $1B in legal fees in his lifetime. Oh wait, he isn't known as a guy that actually pays his bills. He probably also holds the American record for most times sued for payment.

Using the courts for so many of your business dealings doesn't make you a bad guy ..... no, it really does make you a bad guy.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious what she plans to do with a DNA sample in this case.
Has she got a blue dress in her closet? But this isn't a rape case.
Anyone know?
 
I'm curious what she plans to do with a DNA sample in this case.
Has she got a blue dress in her closet? But this isn't a rape case.
Anyone know?
Well, she did accuse him of rape.
 
Well, she did accuse him of rape.
Okay, I know that, but this is a defamation case. I guess she can prove he raped her, even though he's no longer criminally liable?
 
Okay, I know that, but this is a defamation case. I guess she can prove he raped her, even though he's no longer criminally liable?
She is not in it to settled, and I don't think she cares if she gets money or not. I think she wants to present evidence to show she , indeed got raped, and he lied about it.
 
I'm curious what she plans to do with a DNA sample in this case.
Has she got a blue dress in her closet? But this isn't a rape case.
Anyone know?
Okay, I know that, but this is a defamation case. I guess she can prove he raped her, even though he's no longer criminally liable?
Where did the alleged rape take place?

Q&A on Statute of Limitations on 1st Degree Rape in New York State:

New York
  • Has this state eliminated the statute of limitations for all felony sex crimes? No. New York has a statute of limitations for some of its felony sex crimes, for example rape in the second degree.
  • Does this state reduce a statute of limitations if a victim chooses not report? No. A victim's choice to report or not report does not affect the statute of limitations.
  • Does this state have exceptions to statutes of limitations for DNA evidence? Yes. New York has a DNA exception, as established through case law. See, e.g.: People v Harrison, People v Brown, People v Ramos, People v Bradberry, People v Sigl, and People v Burroughs.
  • What is the state's statute of limitations for its most serious felony sex crimes? 21 years or more.
Learn more about criminal statutes of limitations in New York.


 
Where did the alleged rape take place?

Q&A on Statute of Limitations on 1st Degree Rape in New York State:

New York
  • Has this state eliminated the statute of limitations for all felony sex crimes? No. New York has a statute of limitations for some of its felony sex crimes, for example rape in the second degree.
  • Does this state reduce a statute of limitations if a victim chooses not report? No. A victim's choice to report or not report does not affect the statute of limitations.
  • Does this state have exceptions to statutes of limitations for DNA evidence? Yes. New York has a DNA exception, as established through case law. See, e.g.: People v Harrison, People v Brown, People v Ramos, People v Bradberry, People v Sigl, and People v Burroughs.
  • What is the state's statute of limitations for its most serious felony sex crimes? 21 years or more.
Learn more about criminal statutes of limitations in New York.


So you're saying he could be criminally charged (especially if they have DNA evidence) but she's not interested in filing a complaint. So it still won't happen.
 
The trial may start as early as 6 mos. However, an appeal can easily delay that as can easily a higher court overrule the decision.
 
So you're saying he could be criminally charged (especially if they have DNA evidence) but she's not interested in filing a complaint. So it still won't happen.
I'm not aware of any law that says that criminal charges can't follow a civil suit. That said, if she has corroborative DNA evidence of a sexual encounter that Trump denies, it certainly can't hurt her civil suit against him.

Instead of merely He said, She said, it becomes He said, She said with evidence!
 
I mean this is clearly a media smear job intended to keep trump from being re-elected and it always was. She has no evidence that DNA can solve. Nothing she has can show that the claims she is contending are true, because unless she was vaginally swabbed after an alleged rape then there’s no evidence of penetration and thus no evidence of rape.
 
I mean this is clearly a media smear job intended to keep trump from being re-elected and it always was. She has no evidence that DNA can solve. Nothing she has can show that the claims she is contending are true, because unless she was vaginally swabbed after an alleged rape then there’s no evidence of penetration and thus no evidence of rape.
And yet you believe the women who were “allegedly” raped by Bill Clinton.
 
And yet you believe the women who were “allegedly” raped by Bill Clinton.
I don’t know whether Clinton did it. All I know is that the democrats routinely insist people with far less evidence against them are guilty based on Partisan considerations. The entire reason this chick with no evidence is claiming rape at all is because Trump masterfully showcased all of Bill Clintons alleged dalliances and made the Dems mad.

Plus the whole episode with Judge Kavanaugh shows that democrats will literally invent accusations out of thin air and tell blatant lies (like the nutty professor with her second front door to escape from judge Kavanaugh that conveniently also leads to a sublet in her house she’s getting rent for) to support them.
 
I don’t know whether Clinton did it. All I know is that the democrats routinely insist people with far less evidence against them are guilty based on Partisan considerations. The entire reason this chick with no evidence is claiming rape at all is because Trump masterfully showcased all of Bill Clintons alleged dalliances and made the Dems mad.

Plus the whole episode with Judge Kavanaugh shows that democrats will literally invent accusations out of thin air and tell blatant lies (like the nutty professor with her second front door to escape from judge Kavanaugh that conveniently also leads to a sublet in her house she’s getting rent for) to support them.
To summarize:

Democrats = bad
Republicans = angels
 
I'm not aware of any law that says that criminal charges can't follow a civil suit. That said, if she has corroborative DNA evidence of a sexual encounter that Trump denies, it certainly can't hurt her civil suit against him.

Instead of merely He said, She said, it becomes He said, She said with evidence!

Exactly. This is what I believe is at stake here.
 
I mean this is clearly a media smear job intended to keep trump from being re-elected and it always was. She has no evidence that DNA can solve. Nothing she has can show that the claims she is contending are true, because unless she was vaginally swabbed after an alleged rape then there’s no evidence of penetration and thus no evidence of rape.
That's almost certainly why this is a defamation case and not a criminal prosecution.

E Jean Carroll claimed that Trump raped her. This was Trump's response. He said that he had never met her, called her a liar, accused her of committing the crime of false testimony, and threatened that people like her should pay dearly for such false accusations..

If the biological material she has matches Trump, then there was a sexual encounter of some kind. Something happened. Trump then knowingly and maliciously lied to defame her. It does not prove that Trump raped her. At this point I'd assume it was impossible to prove that one way or another.
 
Okay, I know that, but this is a defamation case. I guess she can prove he raped her, even though he's no longer criminally liable?
If she proves that he raped her, then his claim that she was lying when she claimed he raped her IS defamatory.
 
I don’t know whether Clinton did it. All I know is that the democrats routinely insist people with far less evidence against them are guilty based on Partisan considerations. The entire reason this chick with no evidence is claiming rape at all is because Trump masterfully showcased all of Bill Clintons alleged dalliances and made the Dems mad.

Plus the whole episode with Judge Kavanaugh shows that democrats will literally invent accusations out of thin air and tell blatant lies (like the nutty professor with her second front door to escape from judge Kavanaugh that conveniently also leads to a sublet in her house she’s getting rent for) to support them.

What the hell are you babbling about? How the **** did Trump do that considering the entire world knew about them 25 years ago?
 
If she proves that he raped her, then his claim that she was lying when she claimed he raped her IS defamatory.
Right. I was just wondering how that would affect criminal charges. I guess it won't.
 
Right. I was just wondering how that would affect criminal charges. I guess it won't.
Depends on the criminal charges, but I strongly suspect that either or both of [1] the statutory limitation on time to commence prosecution has expired, and [2] the prosecution will conclude that there is no "reasonable chance of conviction" will apply.
 
Depends on the criminal charges, but I strongly suspect that either or both of [1] the statutory limitation on time to commence prosecution has expired, and [2] the prosecution will conclude that there is no "reasonable chance of conviction" will apply.
I tried to find some details of her story, but couldn't. What I did find made me roll my eyes. I think it would be a hard trial for her.
 
Does she have a DNA sample to compare it up against? That would be shocking.
Can you imagine the heads exploding if she did and was able to prove rape?

(I am not saying he did it ReTrumplicans)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom