Only because Trump didn’t show for the trial, not that he actually assaulted anyone. Liability isn’t guilt. — NOS4A2

You really should attempt to know the facts before making such claims. It was a civil trial not a criminal trial. Whether or not he showed up for the trial is immaterial to the determination that he assaulted her.

A party is liable when they are held legally responsible for something. Unlike in criminal cases, where a defendant could be found guilty, a defendant in a civil case risks only liability.

Civil law

It was a sham trial with a sham judge, long past the statutes of limitation, lacking any hard evidence, and in a hostile jurisdiction.

Sexual assault is a crime. No one has been found guilty of it. End of story.

Sexual assault is a crime. No one has been found guilty of it. End of story. — NOS4A2

The jury found in her favor. He sexually assaulted her. He was not found guilty because it was not a criminal case, not because no crime had been committed.

That’s right. He was not found guilty of the crime of sexual assault.

It was a sham trial with a sham judge, long past the statutes of limitation, lacking any hard evidence, and in a hostile jurisdiction. — NOS4A2

Again, the point is that Jean Carroll didn't come up "empty-handed". She was awarded five million bucks because a jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted her.

In any case, if Trump had the poor judgment to choose lawyers that bungled jury selection and the rest, it doesn't inspire confidence.

NY state democrats literally introduced legislation, in collusion with Carrol’s lawyers, to get Trump. They have to make up legislation in order to penalize Trump for it. Complete show trial.

He was not found guilty of the crime of sexual assault. — NOS4A2

In a prior post you claimed:

One can spend days looking through indictments, criticisms, and books for any wrongdoing ... — NOS4A2

He was found liable for sexual assault. That is wrongdoing.

Being found guilty of a crime is not the same thing.

Complete show trial. — NOS4A2

A Trump supporter would characterize any trial that involved Trump as a show.

“Not only has the Trump Foundation shut down for its misconduct, but the president has been forced to pay $2 million for misusing charitable funds for his own political gain. Charities are not a means to an end, which is why these damages speak to the president’s abuse of power and represent a victory for not-for-profits that follow the law. Funds have finally gone where they deserve — to eight credible charities. My office will continue to fight for accountability because no one is above the law — not a businessman, not a candidate for office, and not even the president of the United States.”

If this was a show trial why did Trump make 19 admissions? An innocent man doesn't admit guilt. His abuses were not merely verbal.

Trump is no victim. He brought all of this on himself. All of it. He could have refrained from whatever he did to Jean Carroll. He could have refrained from having Stormy Daniels paid hush money with campaign funds. He could have given the classified documents back when he was politely asked for them. He could have conceded the 2020 election and dropped his claims of widespread election fraud when his cases failed in court. "They're weaponizing the Department of Justice!" is something we hear from the Right these days, but that's exactly what Trump tried to do with his own Department of Justice when he pressured them to "just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen." Fortunately, they wouldn't go along with him. His own Attorney General Bill Barr wouldn't go along with the claims of widespread election fraud. Nearly everyone that testified in the January 6th Committee Hearings was a Republican. It's not Democrats who are bringing Trump down, it's the Republicans who have been willing to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

He was found liable for sexual assault. That is wrongdoing.

Being found guilty of a crime is not the same thing.

A wrongdoing is to believe a decades-old assault occurred when time renders evidence and memory obsolete and unreliable. They have statutes of limitations for those reasons. A wrong doing is to dismiss the statute of limitations, and further, to do it for one-year only, for political reasons, as the New York State politicians made abundantly clear. It’s a wrong-doing to hold a show trial.

Are you claiming that sexual assault is not wrongdoing?

Whatever else you think counts as wrongdoing does not erase the wrongdoing he did.

Typical childish Trump defense. Trying to put the blame elsewhere, trying to steer the issue away from what Trump did, and pretending that any accusations against him are for political reasons.

I’m claiming there is no evidence for any sexual assault, not to mention a very reasonable doubt.

Why don’t you tell me what Trump did? You must know.

no evidence for any sexual assault, — NOS4A2

And yet based on the evidence presented the court concluded there was sexual assault.

Many people did not find this at all surprising since he bragged about sexually assaulting women.

And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

And they did use that irrelevant “evidence”, a conversation a decade after the alleged event, at that very trial, proving to me how specious it all was. Saying “you can do anything” is not any brag about what Trump himself did, no matter how hard you spin it.

... no matter how hard you spin it. — NOS4A2

Your clumsy rhetorical tactics may appeal to your fellow Trumpsters, but have no persuasive power.

Accuse the other guy of doing what you are doing. Even with the spin you put on it, it is a clear, straight forward brag about him sexual molesting women.

In that same conversation he did brag about hitting on Nancy O'Dell, referring to himself as “I” and recalling his actions, according to his own word. Nancy O’Dell did not say she was assaulted. In the quote you cite, there is no reference to himself nor an actual event nor actual people. So no, it is not clear.

Trump is and has been a squeaky clean individual. No wrongdoing. And if there is wrongdoing, it’s never been verified by evidence.

If there is evidence, it’s not evidence enough for a jury.

If it is enough for a jury, the jury is biased.

And so on. The Trump cult’s legal philosophy in a nutshell. :yawn:

This is your argument? It has so many holes in it I'll just allow it to collapse under its own weight.

..proving to me.. — NOS4A2

We've seen a lot about proving things to you. No one can prove anything to you, which you do not want proven. But anything which you want proven, you readily prove it to yourself.

:fire: :clap:

Also know as: fair and balanced.

If it is enough for a jury, the jury is biased. — Mikie

Can you imagine what the conservative reaction is going to be when Trump is convicted by a black jury in Atlanta?

… you.

You’re displaying bullying tactics, dear. I thought you were opposed to such antics.

Bullshit called out. "You're bullying." :rofl:

Puts quotes around something no one said. Lies called out.

It's called paraphrasing. You qualified MU's comment as "bullying tactics" but of course will now insist you didn't judge it "bullying" because you were just being descriptive. You seem to have problems understanding how your mother tongue actually works.

I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape.

I thought you were opposed to such antics. — NOS4A2

That was an unsound conclusion you made, as you are prone.

I choose my actions according to the situation, so I can be mean when meanness appears necessary. Go on now, hit me if you will. I'll suffer the pain but admit to having started the fight, rather than suing you for damages.

I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape. — Hailey

Assuming that past presidents were rapists or worse in order to justify Trump’s crimes is what we call rationalizing in the US. Below is Julia Galif with some helpful tips on spotting and dealing with rationalizing. Hopefully your government will allow you to learn about it.

Wait, what? So as a healthy man I'm capable of rape (I just don't because morals), how would that excuse an actual rapist? I'm confused...