It is if it’s not conclusive. You can’t convict someone based on the idea that this other person is a niece of the man you’re looking for so this DNA is probably good enough. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Big Mac on a string hanging just outside the gates of Mar-A-Lago, and two guys hiding in the bushes on either side with shock prods and mouth swabs (with extra long bite-proof sticks).
I vote for this strategy.
Won’t a warrant prompt a series of lawsuits, etc., to block the DNA sampling?
With the recent sanctions in AZ, I think any Trump lawyers would be leery of filing something like that. A DNA sample seems like a pretty common thing these days, and I don’t see what grounds they would have (executive privilege is likely what Trump would like, but presumably even Loose Cannon wouldn’t buy that one).
The “I don’t want to because I’m special” defense.
I dunno…this seems like an awfully reasonable position. Not trumpian at all.
Even if he can’t convince his lawyers to file suits disputing the warrant, he will probably go the passive resistance route and simple ignore the subpoena. It isn’t as if the court is going to send a couple of guys to forcibly hold him down while his cheeks get swabbed (excuse me while I sit for a couple of minutes relishing that image).
Of course this risks his getting additional sanctions from the judge or maybe an Alex Jones style summary judgement, but paying off the civil defamation suit is much preferable to providing evidence that links him to criminal rape.
Even direct evidence is rarely “conclusive.”
You can’t convict someone based on the idea that this other person is a niece of the man you’re looking for so this DNA is probably good enough. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sure you can. You can convict without any DNA at all. We have the testimony of the alleged victim. Many have gone to prison with just that. Some DNA evidence on top of that just adds to the level of proof. (of course, a jury might not be convinced, but they could convict based on that evidence)
Couldn’t they just have one of his Secret Service guys swipe one of his empty Diet Coke cans?
I imagine that would be inadmissible in court. As would any DNA that TFG did not agreed to give up.
You mean all those cop and/or lawyer shows are wrong? < boggle >
Not necessarily: Soda Can DNA Helps Cops Solve Break-Ins - CBS News
IANAL but if Trump threw away the Diet Coke can in the trash and they knew for certain it was his (maybe his Secret Service detail confirms that he’s the only one in the household that drinks the stuff), once the trash goes out it’s fair game. They could get the sample from it, no swiping necessary.
Though I think that varies by jurisdiction.
This discussions is sort of starting to make me ill.
This is the Pit, isn’t it?
“Suck It, Trumpy…!”
Anyone knowledgeable in this area care to weigh in on consequences? Or are we still several appeals and stalling tactics away from actual consequences?
I heard fines of such a magnitude that the company won’t be very bruised by, but restrictions on doing business, and banks becoming leery of opening the purse strings. I have nothing specific due to my lack of knowledge, but that’s it generally.
(Also, the company having a bad reputation which (sarcasm) makes Trump feel bad.)
I thought those purse strings were closed long ago, and the real threat was banks calling in the loans they already had out.
It sure could be. I’m a financial dumb person.
Me, too! That’s why I hailed “anyone knowledgeable in this area.” 