Moderation Questions

It isn't, because civil law is not the same as criminal law.

Would you be more inclined to believe that they had a consensual sexual encounter in a Bergdorf dressing room or more inclined to believe that she just made the whole thing up?

Assuming that people only disagree with you because they're stupid is probably not smart.

Coin flip for me.

by her own account she was smitten with him, flirting the entire time, and they went into the changing room together with the ostensible reason of him trying on the lingerie to model for her

i believe they had sex in there

i believe she was a willing participant up until a point

as stated, he stopped and left shortly after she forced him to stop

sounds to me like she was expecting a makeout session and when he just jammed it home unexpectedly she forced him off and he left

seems a bit nuanced and you could understand why he thought they were going to be raw dogging because 99/100 that situation leads up to consensual sex

What you've described sounds like rape.

There is no dispute that this was a civil verdict, not a criminal verdict or trial with physical evidence but what was weak about the case?

Your belief about what happened isn't that different from her testimony. It is of course entirely inconsistent with Trump's testimony.

I obviously never talked to any of the jurors, but I suspect that all of them believed that she met Trump that day. And on the question of consent, they didn't find Trump remotely credible because they were 100% certain that he was lying about whether he encountered her that day. It would not be at all surprising for a juror to conclude that, if Trump was lying about ever having met her, then there must be a reason why he was lying. That's how jurors think, and that's why lying your face off in court cases isn't nearly as effective as most people imagine it is.

Admitting that he met her isn't without risk as a legal strategy. It obviously is a partial validation of her account. But I suspect that a jury would have been more likely to believe that they had a consensual encounter than believe that they never met at all.

Not sure why I'd want to do that.

20 years , poor recollection and no way the I grab pussy tape should have been allowed. Did they have sex ? possibly but sorry you got raped in a department store change room I don't buy it

what is it specifically that i wrote conflicted with her testimony?

it's possible i misremembered but this is entirely based upon her own account

Only the part about her expecting a "makeout session." I didn't recall her saying that but I am going from memory as well.

jfc roc - you owe me an apology

you made a broad and sweeping post that i posted nonsense and in reality your only gripe is what i suspected were her expectations

so tell me this... she thought... after flirting with him for some time... shopping for lingerie together... and going into a changing room together to... checks notes... watch him undress naked and then put on women's lingerie for her - she didn't think there was going to be any sort of sexual conduct transpiring

ok jan

i was being incredibly generous giving her the benefit of doubt that a makeout session was all she was expecting - that's the bare minimum

He said that your account of what happened is broadly similar to the victim's testimony, not exactly sure why you're mad here.

OK, cool, but circling back to the whole "he jammed it home unexpectedly and she forced him off" bit, that seems quite a bit rapey to me.

Also the whole "she expected a makeout sesh" bit seems to be something you fabricated.

Your opinion of Rococo makes you post some ridiculous things at times. At no point in Rococo's post did he imply that what you posted was nonsense. Hell it was basically agreeing and corroborating most of what you said; it's entirely in your head that it was somehow antagonistic towards you.

Shame this part didn't come out during the trial.

What in the world.

Obviously this. My post was not remotely antagonistic, nor was it intended to be.

Rick, as I've said before, if I want to make an antagonistic post directed at you, if I want to insult you, if I want say the mean thing about you, I know how to do it directly, and I will do it directly. Your most recent post makes it awfully tempting to do so now, but I'll refrain.

he said what i wrote conflicted with her testimony when it was in fact based on her testimony and accurate

this is just gaslighting, at no point did i deviate from her testimony

in fact, the one part you griped with was where i stated what her intentions must have been which is an opinion - obviously her "i was just going to watch him get naked and put on lingerie" was nonsense

roc, if your wife told you she'd been flirting with the don while lingerie shopping with him and when he told her to go into the changing room to put them on, she then said "no you put them on" and he said ok and the two of them went into the changing room together... even if you believed she was only going to watch him get naked and then put the lingerie on with no other intentions of sexual conduct - would you consider that an act of infidelity? or is that just simple innocent fun between two strangers and trump made it weird thinking they were gong to bang?

I think you misread the very post you quoted. Either that, or you is not too well at the Englishes.

I suggest you reread his post. I'll even help you out:

[QUOTE=Rococo]Your belief about what happened isn't that different from her testimony. [/QUOTE]

This is Rococo saying that your post was very similar to her testimony, which is what you're apparently mad about. Your opinion of Rococo is affecting you to the extent of impacting your basic reading comprehension.

No he said what you wrote is inconsistent with Trump’s testimony. Not hers.