SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (235493)5/6/2022 10:00:38 AM
From: neolib2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Brumar89
Terry Maloney

  Respond to of 362460
 
ROTHFLMAO! Did you get this date?

“We are pleased that the parties have committed that fact discovery will resume in this case and be completed by November 16, 2022,” Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said in a statement.

Its AFTER the next election! Trump is pretty clever that way. I'm sure his side used the date as part of the negotiation.

I'm still quite certain he settled the last rape case against him, despite the women's lawyer claiming the case was dropped without a settlement. It was "dropped" after keeping the assembled press waiting for something like 5 hours, and this was just a few days prior to the 2016 election, with a scheduled court appear for Donald a few weeks after the election. Do the math. He settled and she walked off with a stiff no-talk agreement.

Trump will try the same thing here, but so far this lady has stuck to her guns that she wants to expose him, not settle. That is a problem for Donald.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (235493)5/6/2022 3:56:39 PM
From: Terry Maloney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362460
 
>> Question for Trumpers: Should he be compelled to give a DNA sample? After all, if she's lying, his DNA would clear him. <<

Cheesy lawyer types don't reply to hard questions like that, they just go on being cheesy. It's a point of pride, it seems.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (235493)5/7/2022 1:52:19 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362460
 
This is her story as she wrote it in the New Yorker. If you believe this nonsense you're dumber than I thought. At the time, she would have been around 50, certainly well-aware of Trump's reputation and she mostly likely understood the position she was in when she followed him into the dressing room. If there were in fact a rape, she was in a retail upscale store in Midtown and she could have made enough noise that she would at least have witnesses. She says she was laughing during the incident. Why not just yell for HELP?

I find it highly unlikely Trump's lawyers would allow him to provide a DNA sample anyway. This sounds like so much bullshit.

The tale is everything BUT credible. The claim is so old it is barred by the statute,

She and Trump ran into each other at Bergdorf Goodman; Trump convinced her to help him shop for a present in the lingerie department; Carroll—“and as I write this, I am staggered by my stupidity,” she states—went into the fitting room with him; Trump shoved her against the wall, unzipped his pants, and forced his penis inside her. Eventually, Carroll fought him off and ran away. She still carries around the shrapnel of this encounter, myriad pointed details lodged in her mind—such as the fact that, at the beginning of the struggle, she was so shocked that she was laughing. There is a limit, for everyone, to the uses of compartmentalization. Whether it’s “my age, the fact that I haven’t met anyone fascinating enough over the past couple of decades to feel ‘the sap rising,’ as Tom Wolfe put it, or if it’s the blot of the real-estate tycoon, I can’t say,” Carroll writes, closing her essay. “But I have never had sex with anybody ever again.”

Moreover, the existence of DNA is not proof a rape occurred.

And ELLE fired her over it. IF they did, she should be suing THEM for money, NOT Trump.

This is bullshit and it reeks from NY to Texas.