The same video was submitted as evidence in the E Jean Carrol trial to show a pattern of Trump’s behavior.

The same video was submitted as evidence in the E Jean Carrol trial to show a pattern of Trump’s behavior. — NOS4A2

You can't give an example of anyone claiming that the video is proof of sexual assault but you believe that such people exist anyway. Kinda cultish, I gotta say.

A direct quote from E Jean Carrol trial regarding the video:

“He's telling you in his own words how he treats women. It's his modus operandi.”

I don’t understand the weird evasions here.

She’s not claiming that it’s proof of sexual assault, obviously.

Try again?

It was literally presented as evidence in a rape trial. I don’t get what you’re saying here.

So when NOS says: "Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about." He's saying that Trump has never grabbed for pussy and this is a fact. — praxis

That appears to be what he is arguing. I don't know if he actually believes what he says though. He also argues that Trump was just boasting. I don't know if he actually believes that either.

Note how he misrepresents in order to deny what no one has claimed:

... not what he does when he meets people. — NOS4A2

So, unless he grabs "people" by the pussy when he meets them it cannot be true that he has grabbed some women by the pussy. He seems to think that since he did not grab this woman on camera it cannot be true that he has ever done this.

... many people claim he is admitting to assault — NOS4A2

He does not admit to assault because he does not see it as assault. It is what "stars" do. They can do anything. But not this, it is just boasting.

One point that he continues to ignore is that a number of other women have accused him of the same thing. But by some perversion of reason he thinks or at least claims to think that is not evidence. In addition, the unanimous decision of the jury based on the evidence they heard is not evidence either because they are all biased against him.

It was literally presented as evidence in a rape trial. I don’t get what you’re saying here. — NOS4A2

If you can show where someone in the trial claimed that the video proves that Trump sexually assaulted a woman then do so.

Do you think that when "they let you do it", it is assault?

What I seem to think to you can be contrasted to what I actually do think: Nowhere does he admit to any assault in the video. Nowhere has assault been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. That's it. All there is are accusation, all of which can be seriously doubted.

In addition, the unanimous decision of the jury based on the evidence they heard is not evidence either because they are all biased against him. — Fooloso4

You would think that Trumps lawyers would have done better in the jury selection process. I hear he only hires the best people.

If you can show where someone in the trial claimed that the video proves that Trump sexually assaulted a woman then do so.

Are you saying that I think that others believe Trump assaulted someone in the video?

You would think that Trumps lawyers would have done better in the jury selection process. I hear he only hires the best people.

There was no jury selection process. Such a fair trial.

There was no jury selection process. Such a fair trial. — NOS4A2

I’m no legal buff but just did a quick search and it looks like your delusions are deepening.

Are you saying that I think that others believe Trump assaulted someone in the video? — NOS4A2

Sure, I'll go further down the rabbit hole. Do you think that others believe Trump assaulted someone in the video?

Do you think that when "they let you do it", it is assault? — NOS4A2

If they let you do it without them wanting him to do it, it is.

Nowhere does he admit to any assault in the video. — NOS4A2

If he grabs them by the pussy without their consent then he is admitting to assault. Groupie might consent because someone is a star, but this does not mean that if a star lets them do it they consent. Do you think Harvey Weinstein was innocent?

Nowhere has assault been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. — NOS4A2

As others have already pointed out, this was not a criminal case. He was found guilty based on the preponderance of evidence.

There was no jury selection process. Such a fair trial. — NOS4A2

There was a jury selection process.

You would think that Trumps lawyers would have done better in the jury selection process. I hear he only hires the best people. — praxis

As I am sure you know, the best people will not work for him. I don't think they could have done better at selecting impartial jurors, although team Trump, led here by NOS will argue that any jury that finds him guilty must be biased against him.

None of your straw-grasping can contend with the fact no evidence of any sexual assault or admission of any sexual assault occurred in the video. All sexual assault has been explicitly denied. He said; she said. You: She said, therefor he did. I just don't follow it.

As for the jury selection it was an anonymous jury. No lawyers had access to them during the process, therefor no voir dire.

As for the jury selection it was an anonymous jury. No lawyers had access to them during the process, therefor no voir dire. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. It was an unusual voir dire, which I assume was designed to protect the identities of the jurors. Protect them from delusional Trump supporters. Trump supporters often don't have a good grasp on reality and have been known to be violent when things don't go their way.

Wrong again. It was an unusual voir dire, which I assume was designed to protect the identities of the jurors. Protect them from delusional Trump supporters. Trump supporters often don't have a good grasp on reality and have been known to be violent when things don't go their way.

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Treat unjustly a group of people and then get angry when they get mad. The logic of petty tyrants.

They were talking about hanging Trump's VP on Jan 6. His partner in governance! Imagine what they'd do to some poor jurors for holding Trump liable for sexual assault.

None of your straw-grasping can contend with the fact no evidence of any sexual assault or admission of any sexual assault occurred in the video. — NOS4A2

He admits to grabbing women by the pussy. Perhaps it is just boasting, but if so, thinking that this is something to boast about says a lot. The fact that he does not assault anyone in the video is evidence that he did not assault anyone in the video. Nothing more.

All sexual assault has been explicitly denied. — NOS4A2

He explicitly denies lots of things he is guilty of. One example from last night is his explicitly denying he did not ask for votes to be "found" in Georgia.

As for the jury selection it was an anonymous jury. — NOS4A2

Anonymous does not mean that there was no jury process.

Do you think that when "they let you do it", it is assault? — NOS4A2

If they don't consent then yes. Letting someone do something and consenting to them doing something are different things. The former only implies that they don't object and/or resist.

For example, you let the government tax you, but you've made it clear in the past that you don't consent to it.

And even if Trump meant it in the sense of "consent", that he says that they do isn't that they do, only that he thinks that they do. If he just assumes consent and so "just starts kissing them ... [without] even wait[ing]" then it's assault.

They are going to hang them on gallows too small and weak to be used. Fact is, people often erect mock gallows at protests.

If they don't consent then yes. — Michael

I answered in the same way. Does he really not know this? Giving him the benefit of the doubt he is just being stubbornly argumentative. Otherwise ...

They are going to hang them on gallows too small and weak to be used. Fact is, people often erect mock gallows at protests. — NOS4A2

It’s a threatening sign, yes. I think it was a good idea to protect the jurors from similar signs directed at them.

I don’t doubt for a second that the Adult Survivors Act was designed to allow E. Jean Carrol an opportunity to attack Trump before the election, a scheme as political as it is unjust.

The act was introduced by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, known as he is to use legislation to persecute Trump, proving to me that bending the law is the only way to make it seem like the president broke it. Political from conception to use. According to E Jean Carrols lawyer they had much to do with it as well. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was about principle, but the tiny window of one year proves it’s about expediency. Maybe they realized how dangerous it is to to forgo the statute of limitations entirely, but their hatred ran hotter than their sense of justice.

Daily Beast asked ChatGPT to answer questions 'in the style of Trump', which it did, right down to stylistic ticks and bombast. Here's a sample:

Answer this question in the style of Donald Trump: Why should Americans put you back in the White House?

ChatGPT: Well, let me tell you something folks, nobody, and I mean nobody, has done as much for this great country as I have. When I was in the White House, we had record-low unemployment, we rebuilt our military, and we put America first.

But then the Democrats, and the fake news media, they came after me. They spied on my campaign, they impeached me for nothing, and they tried to steal the election. But I'll tell you what, I'm not a quitter. I'm a fighter. And I fought back harder than anyone else would have.

And you know what? We almost won. We almost took back the White House in 2020, but they cheated, folks. They cheated like you wouldn't believe. They rigged the election, they stole it from us, and they installed Sleepy Joe Biden in the White House.

But I'm not giving up, folks. I'm not giving up on America. I love this country too much. And I know you love it too. That's why I'm asking for your support. Because together, we can make America great again. Again.

Answer this question in the style of Donald Trump: But Mr. President, you know that the election wasn't stolen? The election wasn't stolen.

ChatGPT: Well, let me tell you something, fake news. You're wrong, as usual. The election was stolen, and it was stolen from me. We had massive voter fraud, we had dead people voting, we had illegal immigrants voting, we had ballots being shipped in from other countries. It was a disgrace, and everybody knows it.

But you know what? We're not gonna let it stand. We're not gonna let the Democrats get away with stealing the election. We're fighting back, and we're gonna keep fighting until we get to the truth.
Because that's what we do, folks. We fight for what's right, and we never give up. And I know that the American people are with us, because they know that the election was stolen too. They know that Sleepy Joe Biden didn't win, he lost, and he lost bigly.

So don't try to tell me that the election wasn't stolen, fake news. I know the truth, and the American people know the truth too. And we're not gonna stop fighting until we get the justice that we deserve. Because that's what true patriots do. We fight for our country, we fight for our freedom, and we fight for the truth.

Answer this question in the style of Donald Trump: Do you have any regrets about your actions on January 6?

ChatGPT: Well, let me tell you something, folks. What happened on January 6 was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to our country, and it was a disgrace to the millions of Americans who support me and my vision for America.

But you know what? I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't incite violence, and I didn't encourage anyone to break the law. What I did was speak the truth and fight for what's right.

And that's why I have no regrets about my actions on January 6. I was standing up for the millions of Americans who feel like their voices aren't being heard, and I was standing up to the corrupt politicians who are trying to silence us.

Now, some people might try to twist my words or take them out of context, but the truth is that I never encouraged violence or lawlessness. I simply encouraged people to fight for what's right and to demand that our voices be heard.

More at Thedailybeast.com

E. Jean Carroll May Sue Trump a Third Time After ‘Vile’ Comments on CNN

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/nyregion/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation.html

Good. :clap:

He’s too stupid to learn, but that’s no excuse.

He said; she said. — NOS4A2

As with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby it's:
He said; she said. And she said, and she said, and she said ...

As with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby it's:
He said; she said. And she said, and she said, and she said ...

All after he became a political target of the highest order. Just a big coincidence, I guess.