Trying to get my head around this Trump case.

1. This woman claimed that Trump essentially bumps into her in a department store, persuades her to come and look at some lingerie, cajoles her into a changing room, which she willingly does, and then rapes her.

No physical evidence, no CCTV, nothing. No reporting it to the police for decades, no medical evidence. Essentially her word against his.

The Jury disbelieves her rape claim but still finds Trump guilty of sexual assault anyway?

Trump says he has no idea who this woman even is and vehemently denies it.

This woman was either raped or she was not. That is it. If you don't believe her claims about being raped, how can you then believe her claims about being sexually assaulted? Was the penetrative sex consensual but everything else not?

None of this makes any sense whatsoever.

Edited by Matov (10 May 2023 6.12am)

The cope from many on the left is beyond bizarre about this.

Because the contradiction contained within this verdict is simply more and more difficult to comprehend as time goes on.

A victim claims rape. The jury decide not to believe her (because the case is simply a case of her word v his) but say that she was sexually assaulted.

You cannot even make an argument about weighing up the evidence because there is none. Nada. Just her word about it.

So it all boils down to if you believe her claim about the rape or not. Everything else is merely secondary. Trump is either guilty of raping her or he is not. There is nothing else on the line here.

Bloody strange turn of events.

I'll try to help a little. The main part of the case was the defamation element - Trump accused her of lying. He could have said it was consensual, he did not, he said it never happened.

As 'evidence' she brought in 3 friends who backed up her story as she told them over 20 years ago. There was also evidence from other woman who claimed Trump did similar to them e.g. woman sitting next to Trump on a flight.

Trump claimed he never meet her and she was not his type. A photo showed them together which he also confused with one of his former wives. So much for not being his type.

In terms of the rape element i think under cross examination she claimed whilst something penetrated her she didn't actually see his dick - guess he pushed her against the wall and did it from behind.

Trump chose not to offer any witnesses or attend.

Historic claims are always one word against another, there is usually no 'evidence'. Do you think Barry Bennell, Jimmy Saville, Harvey Weinstein are sex offenders?

Edited by palace99 (10 May 2023 4.05pm)

I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this.

The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was.

You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself.

Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we?

JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault.

LOL. A perfect example of the cope.

The Trump 2024 campaign team thanks you.

I bet you voted for Brexit - how is that going?

I presume you mean coup?

Based on your logic the Savilles and Weinsteins of this world were perfectly innocent too as there was no physical evident or eye witnesses. Bizarrely that's how rape/sexual assault is committed.