$5 million quid. Pricey

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

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 Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

It just shows how like John F. Kennedy he is.

A valid point but the crux of it is the rape bit. She was either raped like she says she was or she was not. That is what I cannot get my head around. And if not it means that A: The Jury believe she consented or B. She is lying.

Her claim is founded on the rape allegation. If the Jury don't believe her on that, even in a civil court, then how can they go with the rest?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Quite. Essentially it boils down to he said/she said. So if you believe her then you have to believe she was raped.

And if you don't, then she either consented or she lied. But either way, a lesser sexual crime falls away based on that.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

I heard somewhere the investigation into Biden Inc in DC tomorrow so this is a distraction of interesting timing.

It's certainly a strange one, Trump denies he knows the woman, she said she wanted damages for Trump calling her a liar for the rape accusation, the jury didn't find she was raped but still awarded damages.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Good luck with that.

The media coverage has also been interesting, especially mute about the victim.

As I understand it 30 years ago this woman was in a department store bumped into Trump who she did not know. They got chatting and he invited her to go to the Lingerie department to look at the frillies (as one does with a strange man).

They then decide to go to a dressing room where he assaulted her.

Now imagine if instead of Trump it was Obama or Clinton who was accused. What do you think the media reaction to this woman's story would be?

I suspect a lot of columnists opining on her personal behaviour and poor judgement.

One more point

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)

As is typical, it is easy to get bogged down in the detail, which is what Trumps opponents want ultimately.

Men of wealth and power are rarely free of questionable morals or a sense of entitlement.
Trump is just another one in a long line. JFK was another, but he is considered a saint by some. It's all about how you frame it.

I am not an admirer of Trump so much as the enemy of his opponents. The extent to which they are prepared to go to stop him illustrates how scared they are of him. He stirs up resistance to the creeping disease that has inflicted the West.

It comes to something when someone like me hears Putin speak and find myself struggling not to agree with his rhetoric about the West, propaganda or not.