Well come on. If it’s ok for the swamp creatures that Trump promised to get rid of in order to get elected, surely it’s ok for him? Is that even really a defense?

  1. I think its ludicrous

  2. You don’t get to have it both ways. Either his tweets, as I have said are just him exorcising his 1st amendment rights, or they are official Presidential communications as leftists claim.

  3. I’m still voting for him

I think you’re in the wrong thread. :roll_eyes:

" Trump denied the allegations Saturday, telling reporters as he departed the White House for Camp David, “I have no idea who this woman is.”

“I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who’s also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation,” Trump said. “I think she was married, as I read. I have no idea who she is.”

Trump also claimed he “never met this person” in a statement on Friday."

Statements to the press weren’t on Twitter. Thanks for playing.

1 Like

The laws written by the people using this pretext to attempt to unseat him gave the DoJ that duty.

It’s the law regarding State servants being charged while executing their duties. And honestly, this charge is only being laid because Schiff had yet another brain fart when fantasising over how else the Dems could try taking out Trump.

What State duty was he executing?

2 Likes

Time to grab some popcorn and enjoy watching supposed small government conservatives defend this because Trump can do no wrong.

1 Like

It is just another example of how far we have fallen as a nation under this man. He must go! This is insanity.

3 Likes

Exactly. Which is how most of his supporters believe. Unreal.

2 Likes

No. Taxpayers should not be involved at all. That said, why is this just now being investigated? If it allegedly happened in the 90s, why was it not investigated then? Is there not a statute of limitations for the victim to press charges? Now she’s writing a book about it? The dots don’t add up here.

It’s a civil case, not a criminal one.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

Thanks. I wondered if there’s a statute of limitations regarding rape from a civil POV and came across this? Do you think this was Cuomo’s intent? It is quite the coincidence?

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed a bill into law Wednesday morning extending the statute of limitations for rape victims.

Quite a coincidence … who was the primary target of the extension

This is a civil case.

Keep on trying.

It’s a defamation suit, not a criminal complaint of rape

Civil… not criminal.

1 Like

That has nothing to do with the lawsuit. The civil case isn’t about rape, it’s about defamation of character.

So…

  1. It’s a defamation case not a rape case in civil v. criminal court.

  2. The law that Cuomo signed is irrelevant since Carroll filed her defamation suit in November 2019, well before the law (which isn’t relevant) would have gone into effect.
    .
    .
    .
    .WW, PSHS

1 Like

The extension is irrelevant to the Carroll case.

Do you think that President Trump is involved with other cases of 2nd or 3rd degree rape that this law might impact?
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

Thanks for the explanation.

If this rape is 1st degree, Cuomo’s change makes it where there is no statute of limitations.

"There is no statute of limitations for rape in the first degree."

This isn’t a rape case, it’s a civil defamation case.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

If there’s defamation, would it not have to be preceded by being guilty of what is alleged? If I say you raped me and Trump’s response is considered defamation, then wouldn’t it have to be presumed he’s guilty of the alleged rape? Why would her unproven allegation not be considered the first defamation?

1 Like