Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump’s Accusers

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    😂 Miranda applies to notification of right to remain silent at point of arrest. E. Jean Carroll has a CIVIL suit filed against Trump for defamation. I’m sure he can refuse to be deposed I’m the case but that’s going to work against him had when it comes to verdict time.



    A judge has already directed that he submit a sample. That’s what triggered his now failed bid to have DOJ defend him. Let’s stay tuned. Again, perhaps it won’t be criminal if he doesn’t provide it for a civil suit - not a lawyer - but I don’t think a judge is going to overlook the noncooperation when rendering judgment.

    Also, too, if the DNA would exonerate , why not do it ? consciousness of guilt I think




    If one was guilty you would be an idiot . If innocent you would be smart to clear your name.

    Easy peasy con.
    ^ this guy gets it

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      😂 Miranda applies to notification of right to remain silent at point of arrest. E. Jean Carroll has a CIVIL suit filed against Trump for defamation. I’m sure he can refuse to be deposed I’m the case but that’s going to work against him had when it comes to verdict time.



      A judge has already directed that he submit a sample. That’s what triggered his now failed bid to have DOJ defend him. Let’s stay tuned. Again, perhaps it won’t be criminal if he doesn’t provide it for a civil suit - not a lawyer - but I don’t think a judge is going to overlook the noncooperation when rendering judgment.

      Also, too, if the DNA would exonerate , why not do it ? consciousness of guilt I think




      If one was guilty you would be an idiot . If innocent you would be smart to clear your name.

      Easy peasy con.

      the defamation occured while he was POTUS thats why DOJ sought to represent

      she is suing for defamation -the Burden of proof is on her to prove he knowingly provided false and injurious information - i would fight the sample as well in this instance
      keep trying

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        the defamation occured while he was POTUS thats why DOJ sought to represent

        she is suing for defamation -the Burden of proof is on her to prove he knowingly provided false and injurious information - i would fight the sample as well in this instance
        keep trying
        A judge has ruled he must provide it. Will SCOTUS protect him before the clock runs out on his presidency? After January he can either produce (and clear his name, no?) or not, in which case a jury will consider that as a guilt.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          A judge has ruled he must provide it. Will SCOTUS protect him before the clock runs out on his presidency? After January he can either produce (and clear his name, no?) or not, in which case a jury will consider that as a guilt.
          a jury will consider that as whatever they feel, as all jurors do

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            a jury will consider that as whatever they feel, as all jurors do
            No, the judge will instruct the jury to make a negative inference based on his refusal to provide it, among other sanctions that the judge can levy. Th judge may even default Trump for violating the judge's order.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by unregistered View Post
              no, the judge will instruct the jury to make a negative inference based on his refusal to provide it, among other sanctions that the judge can levy. Th judge may even default trump for violating the judge's order.
              ^^^^^ 💯

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                No, the judge will instruct the jury to make a negative inference based on his refusal to provide it, among other sanctions that the judge can levy. Th judge may even default Trump for violating the judge's order.
                so now libs know what judges will say before they say it? thats amazing

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  so now libs know what judges will say before they say it? thats amazing
                  Not the OP but I would bet $100 OP has more legal insight than you. Something tells me 😊

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Not the OP but I would bet $100 OP has more legal insight than you. Something tells me 😊
                    The judge doesn't even need to tell them that. Juries may not always be the best and brightest, but they'd know defying a legal order means you've got something to hide.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      The judge doesn't even need to tell them that. Juries may not always be the best and brightest, but they'd know defying a legal order means you've got something to hide.
                      you realize that defying a court order (its not a suggestion) is a legal criminal charge in itself
                      so it will be resolved before the Jury ever is presented with the case

                      Comment

                      Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                      Auto-Saved
                      x
                      Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                      x
                      Working...
                      X