Hairsplitting is a good way to describe how the law works.
And when Trump (on the golf course) burbled about going to confront his accuser… The judge kindly gave him plenty of time to appear. But he did not. Did not even reply to the judge’s unusually generous offer.
I do wonder if his lawyers and handlers even told him about the opportunity.
If I were them (unlikely, given his propensity to stiff people on bills), I would have kept him as far away as possible and lied my ass off if asked. With his ego, he probably thinks he could have worked the judge and jury into buying some disgusting story about a consensual encounter.
There are many headlines saying that Trump “rejected” the chance to testify.
But each story talked about Tacopina (how is that not a vegan taco made with pineapple) declining. I think it’s possible that Trump wanted to testify, and was told he couldn’t.
It might have even been a better strategy to keep him off the stand. I can easily see a scenario where based on Trump’s foot going into his mouth, he manages to also get the jury to agree that Carroll was also raped, in addition to the other allegations they found him liable for.
As sleazy as Tacopina appears to be, I wouldn’t have trouble believing any of the possibilities, except the whopper they tell of how innocent and put upon that orange bastard is.
I still don’t get it. NYS says it doesn’t qualify as ‘rape’ because his mushroom is too short to qualify as a penis…?
Some states define rape as penile penetration. Some states define rape as penetration by anything, including objects or digits. New York defines it the former way, and Carroll was unable to affirmatively testify that Trump penetrated her with his penis. His fingers she was certain about.
Right, in many states, NY included, to specifically call it “rape” vs, “whatevereth-degree sexual battery” you need to have specific things happen. Like they said above, the Law is all about splitting hairs.
The speed of decision suggests to me the jury found that the evidence is that Trump had obviously at at the very least started a sexual assault AND gratuituously accused his victim of lying about it, but would have bogged down on hairsplitting for moral “justice”.
Interestingly, there was a case about a man claiming his wife had an adulterous relationship as the cause of divorce. He wanted to sue for alienation of affection.
It was not allowed as his wife had the affair with a woman. At that time adultery was defined as penis-vagina only. Other forms of sexual Congress were not considered under that definition.
Some of the laws in various states are a bit out of step with modern times.
Trump’s lawyer probably kept him off the stand, and out of the courtroom because he thought Trump might grope someone on his way to the stand.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that had been the case. After all, there’s a reason he’s so sensitive about people pointing out his fingers are so short.
I like to think that history lesson he delivered that ended in “unfortunately or fortunately” sealed his fate.
That IS possible, but legally it was clear that Trump had every opportunity to appear, even if his lawyer advised against it.
The possibility that Tacopina lied to Trump and said he could NOT appear would not be grounds for appeal of today’s verdict. Nor would any claim by Trump that he didn’t know he had been given an extension by the judge in case he wanted to appear.
Of course none of that will stop Trump from lying to his followers that he ‘wasn’t allowed’ to appear—presumably barred by “the corrupt judge” or by “the system”. Trump isn’t about to say that his own lawyer had the power over him to keep him from appearing. That would make him look weak.
Trump didn’t die. That pisses me off.
Cue the inevitable appeals, delays, media circus involving grifting his cult followers…
I wouldn’t count on a check passing hands to her or PAB’s lawyer.
In two weeks. 
How ’bout this? “Killing Puppies — It Doesn’t Bother Me” … That’s me, Frank Noland, and I LIKE dead puppies! Frankly,I’m totally in favor of using federally supported municipal bonds to pay for forced busing of Soviet Communists to come into your homes to kill your puppies! Give me a call, won’t you? The lines are open. Tell ME what you think about it. [lights his cigarette, mumbles to himself] Dead, mangled puppies… I like ’em …
Ah yes, always remembered “No Toilets For the Blind”.
carry on
What’s the over/under on whether or not Trump blurts out more defamatory comments on tonight’s “town hall” on CNN?
I think that his guilty verdict in the Carroll defamation case does not mean he now has carte blanche to defame her again.
I noticed that his comments on the case after the verdict would not quite approach defamatory:
"ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA” who Carroll was, and that the “VERDICT IS A DISGRACE - A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!”
It’s possible that he was telling the truth in the first part; He has no idea because he’s suffering from dementia, and cannot recognize individual people anymore. So this might not be a lie.
For the second part - that’s just usual bullshit blathering and victimhood, and does not defame an individual.
If he sticks to that script of generalizations he’ll be OK. But if he meanders into repeating his lies about Carroll again, he’ll be in court again IMHO.
Or he’s assaulted so many women that no one of them stands out in his memory.