"A judge ruled last week that Donald Trump cannot escape a defamation lawsuit brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll, marking the 2nd time in the past year that a court has ruled against him on this matter. Carroll has accused the President of raping her in the 1990’s, and she was subsequently attacked as a “liar” by the President. She claims that this arises to defamation as it has cost her her job. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains what’s happening."--The Ring of Fire. ______________________ *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. I think the biggest reason why they do not want this particular lawsuit to move forward with any kind of speed is because EG and Carol kept the outfit that she was wearing when the alleged assault took place and they have been able to recover DNA off it. And part of her lawsuit is seeking Donald Trump's DNA. And that makes sense, not because they're going to pop him with rape. The statute of limitations on that has, has ended. They can't do that. He cannot be arrested for that, but he said, she's lying about the rape. So as part of proving herself, correct, she has to prove that he raped her because the burden of proof falls on the person claiming they've been defamed, therefore, in order to prove that he didn't do it, Donald Trump would in fact have to give up his DNA sample to see if it matches what was on the outfit. If it doesn't match you're home free, but if it does match well, you're going to have to pay out some money in a defamation lawsuit. But also everybody's pretty much going to know that what she says you did, you really did do.
Are they planning on cross examining the outfit? Seems like yet another lawsuit designed to defame and demoralize. We call this getting Kavanaugh'd. Your boy Biden is going through it too. IANAL obviously but: Trump would not have to give a DNA sample to prove his innocence. Again, the presumption of innocence protects him. Bodily fluids on an outfit could also be from consensual sex. The burden on the accuser is to prove it was nonconsesual, which with how long it took for her to come out and the suspicious coinciding with his presidency, will be a very high wall to clear to get a jury to believe. In reality they probably do not want the suit to move forward because the rape accusation is easily proved false, but the defamation case could be expensive. Interesting though, because the counter defamation case Trump has could easily bankrupt the accuser. High risk high reward, I guess.
No one is surprised by your defense of such an awful person. Good luck with that. Her case looks solid to me. Notwithstanding your obvious, unwavering, unmitigated, full on bias; how does the case look to you ... just based on what you know about it so far? Everyone but Trump is always lying, right? Yeah, that's a credible position. I'll be looking for your opinions as each chicken, one by one, eventually comes home to roost.
Just like they tried to make Kavanaugh out to be a rapist by beating to death the "I have a few beers every once and while", they also try it with Trump's characteristic boisterousness. While character can factor into a rape case (as discussed below), it's not good enough evidence that the accused was capable of committing a crime such as this one. But let's stay focused on the actual problem - proving rape: IANAL so let's just use some deductive reasoning here: https://rape.uslegal.com/evidence-to-establish-rape/ So we have to somehow establish a rape occurred. The reason rape kits exist is to establish this chain of evidence early (for example DNA evidence extracted from the victim) in order to establish the first major part - sexual penetration. I have done some cursory digging and can't find a single news article mentioning a rape kit was performed. So we don't have even the first, most basic, and simplest way to show the necessary penetration occurred. Fluids on a dress, if they even exist, do not do this in my eyes and if I was on the jury would not meet any standard I would be comfortable putting a man away for many years on. Importantly: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/30/e-jean-carroll-trump-rape-accuser-dna-sample At least four people. At least one of them male. That doesn't speak well to her character which of course must be examined with extreme prejudice in such serious accusations. Moving on, Threat of force and coercion/deception is even more difficult. Perhaps they have some witnesses that saw him act funny to her. If that's the case, perhaps a very weak case could be established here. They're hoping that some DNA evidence on a coat sleeve proves assault. Trump again has an out: http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagos-real-law-blog/2011/04/how-to-prove-a-rape-happened/ Note the above article is about a different case but I used this quote to reinforce what I said above. It's entirely possible the situation was consensual, and after the fact deemed assault. Again, good luck proving this. But yeah #believeallwomen, right? Let's not ask the simplest questions about one of the most serious crimes one can be accused of.
Responding to your added/edited portion. Trump would have to give his DNA if the court deems it to be in the interest of justice. Given that they have sperm evidence with which to compare to Trump's DNA, I don't see a problem. She has sworn to the source of the sample and will suffer consequences if she is lying. I also don't see Trump having a problem with the DNA submission (if he is telling the truth ... LMAO!), since he said he never met her. He could then use the fact that his DNA doesn't match to go after her in court. Oh, btw, He said he never met here, so no, I don't think that now claiming consensual sex will work, unless the judge and jurors love awful people, rather than the rule of law, like you do. The presumption of innocence doesn't protect you from subpoenas. You, not surprisingly, don't get it ... Counselor: It's a defamation case, asking for money. It's not an impeachment. It's not a rape case. Either Trump settles to her full damage request, or to her liking, if less than that; or gets essentially outed as a rapist, and loses the case and pays monetary damages. EDIT: Maybe his buddies on the Supreme Court can help him out?
Responding to your SECOND edit: Nice work Gumshoe, Trump will probably want to hire you if you ask him, and show him all the ET posts where you've sucked up to him, unconditionally; but again, this is not a rape case. And my previous response is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, where I explain away what you're alleging here.
You've mentioned "awful person" every single time loading every single post with bullshit unrelated to the case. You couldn't even argue away my main position. Excellent personal attacks though. - How much is shariablue paying you to shitpost on a trading forum? It can't be much. You're practically backflipping through the gaping holes in this story.
I addressed all of your assertions. This post of yours, is a pure attack. But since you hit like a little girl, I won't whine about it, like you would. Name an assertion of yours that I did not address; and I'll address it. After that, address my rebuttals that you have so far ignored. At least you consider my saying that you like "awful" Trump, unconditionally, as a personal attack against you. EDIT: It just dawned on me that maybe you mistook the word "gumshoe" as an attack. Un-bunch your panties, gumshoe means detective, Sherlock.
I'm not trying anything, just reporting facts. The last laugh will be the best; and I can be a patient man.