IF Trump were not running for prez, there would be no legal actions against him from anyone – from Bragg, Letita James, the Atlanta, Ga DA’s etc.

The USA has no moral authority at all to lecture other nations about anything.

He said other things, though. Here’s the transcript.

I can’t see taking the Access Hollywood tape as evidence or an indication that Trump could be a rapist. Many recent presidents have used the p-word and talked in ways not so different from Trump, though they weren’t recorded on tape. It’s the locker room talk that men of our time and our parents’ indulge in. Were they all rapists?

But of course, case after case reinforces the unwillingness of voters to support Trump next year.

The particular unlawful touching that Carroll alleges is sexual assault.

Agreed.

The blackletter definition of battery doesn’t really come into play unless the jury determines that Carroll has failed to prove sexual assault, but has proven some lesser toucing. Unless the judge gives a specific instruction on sexual assault, I guess that means that

Given the debacles that have come out of judge instructions lately, I wouldn’t put much past it.

I agree with neo about the defamation claim. It looks like an end-run on the statute of limitations, which became unnecessary after the NY legislature removed the SOL for this case.

Indeed, which is another reason why I regard this case as illegitimate. Tailored legal targeting of individuals is supposed to be illegal and unconstitutional, but such is Current Year.

I also agree with neo about the stale evidence because of the lifted statute of limitations. This case really can’t be decided on anything other than the jury’s judgement on the credibility of Carroll and her witnesses – which 30 year old memory is accurate? Juries decide based on the credibility of conflicting witnesses all the time, though.

The issue I think you are overlooking is the curricula vitae and other issues. Carroll has to not merely appear credible but also identify a time when this could have happened, and Trump for all of his flaws has a WELL documented, long public life. So it is quite possible she will trip herself up.

Art Deco – They stood up and swore on a Bible under penalty of perjury. That makes them witnesses, although granted with the type of he-said, she-said allegations that they’re making there is almost zero chance that they would ever be prosecuted for perjury even if the relevant authorities were inclined to do so, which they are not.

Agreed, unfortunately. We still haven’t had Kavanaugh’s accusers face the music.

Frankly, though, I’m not 100% sure that they are lying. Maybe 70% or 80% sure, certainly but not 100%. Trump is a cad. He was an open and admitted adulterer. He regularly allows himself to be filmed making crude comments about women, and not just with the Access Hollywood thing, but the Megan Kelly thing and more. He regularly comments on womens’ appearance and whether they are or are not “his type.”

Had you been able to stop yourself here, I’d agree with you. But you just can’t help yourself.

Is it really inconceivable that he tried to have his way with women in his younger days, maybe the way he described in the Access Hollywood video? The 1980’s and 1990’s were a different time.

Bluntly, the Access Hollywood nonsense described nothing criminal, and not like what Carroll described. Something unethical, gross, and so on? Sure. Certainly. But not criminal. Which is why part of me is convinced the brouhaha about it was to distract away from Trump accurately describing how many women (and others) would happily go open for people that were rich, powerful, and at least somewhat attractive. Hell, Weinstein didn’t even have that last part.

Which is the issue. As a matter of law I’m not concerned about Trump doing what he said he did on the Access Hollywood tapes; that would just be in line with his skirt chasing ways that we are familiar with. But sexual assault is another can of worms.

The answer is no. Not it is not inconceivable that there is some truth to these allegations.

Fair.

One might counter with “but the left does this.” Yes they do. More likely than not, this is just a more sophisticated version of the Kavanaugh and Thomas hits.

And here I thought you said that this was different from the Kavanuagh and Thomas hits?

But the left’s hits on Kavanaugh and Thomas failed.

BARELY.

And they certainly succeeded with others, such as Roy Moore, whom I also know you liked condemning as a creep and weak candidate which can be true and also not take away from the fact that they claimed his scalp there.

Trump is about to lose a battery judgement over an alleged sexual assault. The difference between those two outcomes is down to Trump.

No, it is due to the venues. Kavanaugh and Thomas were tried in the limelight with Congress in its judicial role, which allowed all sides to air what they had and helped destroy Ford and co as they made their impotent attacks, since as bad as much of the Republican representation was it was not so feeble they would allow Kavanaugh and Thomas to be railroaded.

NYC Civil Suit is different for multiple reasons. For starters, it does not carry the same level of scrutiny or decorum. “Preponderance of evidence” vs. Reasonable Doubt. Moreover, there is not the same kind of limelight or resources that helped destroy Ford’s credibility. And finally, NYC is far more tainted and politicized than Congress since it has been a Dem city for decades, with precious few deviations.

All of these are ultimately more important than Trump’s public misadventures, and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this because of your Concerned Conservative Hunting The Great Orange Whale shtick is fucking absurd and thoroughly undermines your credibility.

Finally – can you really imagine how Kavanaugh would have turned out if he had anything like the Access Hollywood tape or responded to Ford by insisting that she wasn’t his type (after there was evidence that he had confused Ford with his second of three wives)? Probably about the same way that Carroll v. Trump is about to turn out.

Nice try, but no.

Ford was defeated not because Kavanuagh was such a boy scout (though that helped) but because of the balance of terror in Congress preventing a railroad, PLUS Kavanaugh’s representatives and expert witnesses crushing Ford on the stand with her lies, hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and general idiocy. And the fact that she was the MOST CREDIBLE of the accusers speaks volumes to “not sending their best.”

Which brings us back to a fact you don’t seem to understand, probably because you are laboriously trying to avoid addressing it.

While we can argue grimly about whether the US still lives up to the ideal, the ideal was that the MERITS OF THE CASE were more important than the merits of the People. That not even Ted Bundy deserved to go down for a murder he did not commit. And when the process is allowed to work itself out properly – complete with adversarial examination of the accusers and their claims – it mostly works.

Had Kavanaugh said what Trump did, Ford would still be a hypocritical, proven liar and an idiot, and would have still been crushed on the stand. The precious feelings and impressions and Left-Wing Trutherism about Kavanaugh would almost certainly have been reinforced by Kavanuagh saying the things Trump did, but fortunately the power of Left-Wing Trutherism is still limited, for now.

But pointing out the basic, solid foundations of Kavanuagh’s case and why he actually survived Ford undermines your obsessions with personality and love for demonizing Trump. So you will ignore it. Again.

Just like you have professed you intend to ignore my comments because you apparently don’t like people calling your bullshit out in somewhat salty language.

Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.