It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump rape accuser E Jean Carroll seeks DNA sample from president

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2020 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

A big part of that is that the Dems and media are notorious for running with any and every spurious allegation against conservatives they can dig up and in doing so, they've ruined their own credibility and, by extension and often association, the credibility of those making the accusation.

And people are going to form their own personal opinions, sometimes unfairly. Its just the way it is.

But yes, whether its Trump, Biden, Kavanaugh or whomever, legally and politically, they do have a right to due process and the principle of presumption of innocence.
edit on 10-5-2020 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 10 2020 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I think another detail is being missed here. The statue of limitations. For both Trump and Biden the problem is even trying to defend against 20 to 40 year old accusations. So something supposedly happened in 1986 or whenever. How do you even start to defend against a 34 year old accusation?

At this point it's all meaningless. It really can't be proven at this point. The Dims opened this irrelevant can of worms trying to stop Kavanaugh. And now they show their hypocrisy by supporting Biden.

#Walkaway



posted on May, 10 2020 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: UKTruth
No one should ever be forced to give a DNA sample just because another person accuses them of something.
The accused should have to do absolutely nothing at all.
100% of the onus is on the accuser to prove their case.



To prove their case they would have the evidence but would need the DNA

because that WAS the proof


If it turned out not to be that of the accused........retribution of sentence

for the accuser would provide mitigation?




That is why no woman (or man) should ever be believed when they claim rape. The assumption should be that they are lying until they prove otherwise.



If that was the case Bill Clinton would have got away with it in the case of

Monica Lewinsky?




Forcing someone to give DNA is forcing someone to prove they are innocent. That should NEVER fly in a fair society.
A person could be accused by anyone they met even for a moment - especially a rich and famous person. It is totally unacceptable to be forced to provide DNA just because you are accused.

Isn't it rather ironic that the 'my body, my choice' voices are all for forcing another person to yield their body for scrutiny when it suits.
edit on 10/5/2020 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2020 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Forcing someone to give DNA is forcing someone to prove they are innocent. That should NEVER fly in a fair society.
A person could be accused by anyone they met even for a moment - especially a rich and famous person. It is totally unacceptable to be forced to provide DNA just because you are accused.


Any picture of her dress? Any independent lab report that sperm is actually on it? Seems like the typical smoke and mirrors accusation here since it is like zero chance they would ever get any President's DNA swab...



posted on May, 10 2020 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Forcing someone to give DNA is forcing someone to prove they are innocent. That should NEVER fly in a fair society.
A person could be accused by anyone they met even for a moment - especially a rich and famous person. It is totally unacceptable to be forced to provide DNA just because you are accused.



Its not a fair society if the person IS guilty and gets off simply because

he refuses to provide the dna evidence that will convict him ...... However

if the dna proves he didn't do it in *fairness* the accuser should be sentenced?

That would avoid random malicious accusations.




Isn't it rather ironic that the 'my body, my choice' voices are all for forcing another person to yield their body for scrutiny when it suits.



A cotton bud swipe in the mouth is hardly *forcing another person to yield

their body for scrutiny*
.......A bit melodramatic!!



posted on May, 10 2020 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

We need to keep in mind the 4th amendment, though. I would think there would need to be some sort of evidence threshold and establishment of probable cause that would need to be met before the accused could be compelled to submit.



posted on May, 10 2020 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou


really only helps those that have been the one to carry out such a thing.


Wait....what?



posted on May, 11 2020 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: UKTruth

Forcing someone to give DNA is forcing someone to prove they are innocent. That should NEVER fly in a fair society.
A person could be accused by anyone they met even for a moment - especially a rich and famous person. It is totally unacceptable to be forced to provide DNA just because you are accused.



Its not a fair society if the person IS guilty and gets off simply because

he refuses to provide the dna evidence that will convict him ...... However

if the dna proves he didn't do it in *fairness* the accuser should be sentenced?

That would avoid random malicious accusations.




Isn't it rather ironic that the 'my body, my choice' voices are all for forcing another person to yield their body for scrutiny when it suits.



A cotton bud swipe in the mouth is hardly *forcing another person to yield

their body for scrutiny*
.......A bit melodramatic!!




Yes it is fair, because a person does not need to prove their innocence in a fair society.
Only when a person is actually charged with a crime or a court decides that the police have a very good case against a suspect is the provision of DNA forced upon an individual - and even that, IMO, is wrong.
No society should ever force the provision of a persons DNA based on an accusation.
If the police have a case let them bring charges.

There is no legitimate reason to demand DNA evidence in this case.


edit on 11/5/2020 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join