aggiehawg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.

---

So he perjured himself?

Sorry, your story doesn't ring true.

I don't think Trump has any memory of this broad. I also don't think he raped her or stuck his fingers in her without consent. Maybe they hooked up consensually, maybe he came onto her aggressively and was denied, maybe the whole thing never happened! I think all 3 are plausible.

I don't think Trump perjured himself.

---

The next best scenario based upon Occam's Razor that I see is that it didn't happen at all, and the entire encounter really was lifted from a 2012 Law & Order episode.

Hell, it could be the most likely scenario.

---

Yeah about that. She denied to ever seeing that episode at one point but then she went off on a tangent about writing a skit for SNL where William Shatner was wearing underwear (presumably ladies' underwear) on the outside of his clothes and he was turning and posing admiring himself in a full length mirror. Oh and she WON AN EMMY for that!!!!!

This woman cannot remember the years she got married, nor the years she got divorced. She gives a range of years. She's such a ditz.

---

and if you don't have to give even a month of a year, there is no way the defendant can say "I was in Europe that month". Convenient.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.

---

Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".

---

Well he's on tape saying he just goes up and kisses women he finds attractive and grabs them by the private parts. He also argued she wasn't his type and then confused a picture of her with his wife.

People are convicted of crimes based upon circumstantial evidence all the time. He should have put up a better defense. The allegation is weak I agree.

---

What was the circumstantial evidence in this case? Stupid locker room type comments? That's it?

---

Supposedly she had two friends, Birnbach and then Martin that she mentioned it to around the time it allegedly happened. I haven't gotten to their testimony yet to hear what they actually said for such corroboration.

I'll post when I do.

---

Thx! Looking forward to reading your thoughts on this.

---

Birnbach testified Carroll called her minutes after the event, sounding like she was hyperventilating, and described what happened. She testified she told Carroll that what she described sounded like rape. She testified that she encouraged Carroll to go to the polcie and offered to come with her

Martin testified, if I recall, that Carroll visited her a few days after the events and told her the same story. Martin said she advised Carroll to be quiet

---

Well, if her friends say she brought it up to them that helps her case a little. Is that it? Seems ridiculously easy to fabricate a story like this with your friends to smear a celebrity. Wonder why she didn't go to the police.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.

---

So he perjured himself?

Sorry, your story doesn't ring true.

I don't think Trump has any memory of this broad. I also don't think he raped her or stuck his fingers in her without consent. Maybe they hooked up consensually, maybe he came onto her aggressively and was denied, maybe the whole thing never happened! I think all 3 are plausible.

I don't think Trump perjured himself.

---

The next best scenario based upon Occam's Razor that I see is that it didn't happen at all, and the entire encounter really was lifted from a 2012 Law & Order episode.

Hell, it could be the most likely scenario.

---

Yeah about that. She denied to ever seeing that episode at one point but then she went off on a tangent about writing a skit for SNL where William Shatner was wearing underwear (presumably ladies' underwear) on the outside of his clothes and he was turning and posing admiring himself in a full length mirror. Oh and she WON AN EMMY for that!!!!!

This woman cannot remember the years she got married, nor the years she got divorced. She gives a range of years. She's such a ditz.

---

and if you don't have to give even a month of a year, there is no way the defendant can say "I was in Europe that month". Convenient.

---

She didn't give a date and time that this occurred? No way!

93MarineHorn said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.

---

So he perjured himself?

Sorry, your story doesn't ring true.

I don't think Trump has any memory of this broad. I also don't think he raped her or stuck his fingers in her without consent. Maybe they hooked up consensually, maybe he came onto her aggressively and was denied, maybe the whole thing never happened! I think all 3 are plausible.

I don't think Trump perjured himself.

---

The next best scenario based upon Occam's Razor that I see is that it didn't happen at all, and the entire encounter really was lifted from a 2012 Law & Order episode.

Hell, it could be the most likely scenario.

---

Yeah about that. She denied to ever seeing that episode at one point but then she went off on a tangent about writing a skit for SNL where William Shatner was wearing underwear (presumably ladies' underwear) on the outside of his clothes and he was turning and posing admiring himself in a full length mirror. Oh and she WON AN EMMY for that!!!!!

This woman cannot remember the years she got married, nor the years she got divorced. She gives a range of years. She's such a ditz.

---

and if you don't have to give even a month of a year, there is no way the defendant can say "I was in Europe that month". Convenient.

---

She didn't give a date and time that this occurred? No way!

---

Well, actually she changed the year a few times. Originally the story was it happened in 1994 and she still had the dress she was wearing supposedly that day. Problem was that dress, a Donna Karan coatdress was not sold until a few years after that, so she changed the year to 1996. Spring of 1996, she thought because she was not wearing a winter coat. Then randomly while on the stand, she suddenly remembered it was on a Thursday, sometime in spring of 1996. Her memory was that it felt like a Thursday. Whatever the hell a Thursday feels like.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Well, if her friends say she brought it up to them that helps her case a little. Is that it? Seems ridiculously easy to fabricate a story like this with your friends to smear a celebrity. Wonder why she didn't go to the police.

---

Maybe her house had two front doors. Did you ever think of that?

Quote:

---

Carroll told the jury that she first met Trump in 1987 -- but she struggled to pinpoint the year that she alleges he attacked her.

---

GTFO!! A civil jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault and this dingbat couldn't even say what year it happened! You'd think her two friends might remember seeing as she told them at the time. Did they conveniently forget too so that Trump couldn't provide an alibi? Pathetic.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Well, if her friends say she brought it up to them that helps her case a little. Is that it? Seems ridiculously easy to fabricate a story like this with your friends to smear a celebrity. Wonder why she didn't go to the police.

---

Maybe her house had two front doors. Did you ever think of that?

---

Buried in the hippocampus as well.

93MarineHorn said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.

---

Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".

---

Well he's on tape saying he just goes up and kisses women he finds attractive and grabs them by the private parts. He also argued she wasn't his type and then confused a picture of her with his wife.

People are convicted of crimes based upon circumstantial evidence all the time. He should have put up a better defense. The allegation is weak I agree.

---

What was the circumstantial evidence in this case? Stupid locker room type comments? That's it?

---

Supposedly she had two friends, Birnbach and then Martin that she mentioned it to around the time it allegedly happened. I haven't gotten to their testimony yet to hear what they actually said for such corroboration.

I'll post when I do.

---

Thx! Looking forward to reading your thoughts on this.

---

Birnbach testified Carroll called her minutes after the event, sounding like she was hyperventilating, and described what happened. She testified she told Carroll that what she described sounded like rape. She testified that she encouraged Carroll to go to the polcie and offered to come with her

Martin testified, if I recall, that Carroll visited her a few days after the events and told her the same story. Martin said she advised Carroll to be quiet

---

Well, if her friends say she brought it up to them that helps her case a little. Is that it? Seems ridiculously easy to fabricate a story like this with your friends to smear a celebrity. Wonder why she didn't go to the police.

---

Especially when one of the friends (Birnbach) had a history of posting anti-Trump rhetoric on her twitter account. Her politics are known to be anti-Trump. Can't find anything on Martin, but her ex-husband is a longtime producer for daytime TV, including Oprah, Maury Povich, Katie Couric, and others. My guess is the family isn't a Trump fan.

Both women are connected in New York. And my, how many cocktail parties will you be invited to if you had a hand in destroying the Big Bad Orange one?

93MarineHorn said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.

---

So he perjured himself?

Sorry, your story doesn't ring true.

I don't think Trump has any memory of this broad. I also don't think he raped her or stuck his fingers in her without consent. Maybe they hooked up consensually, maybe he came onto her aggressively and was denied, maybe the whole thing never happened! I think all 3 are plausible.

I don't think Trump perjured himself.

---

The next best scenario based upon Occam's Razor that I see is that it didn't happen at all, and the entire encounter really was lifted from a 2012 Law & Order episode.

Hell, it could be the most likely scenario.

---

Yeah about that. She denied to ever seeing that episode at one point but then she went off on a tangent about writing a skit for SNL where William Shatner was wearing underwear (presumably ladies' underwear) on the outside of his clothes and he was turning and posing admiring himself in a full length mirror. Oh and she WON AN EMMY for that!!!!!

This woman cannot remember the years she got married, nor the years she got divorced. She gives a range of years. She's such a ditz.

---

and if you don't have to give even a month of a year, there is no way the defendant can say "I was in Europe that month". Convenient.

---

She didn't give a date and time that this occurred? No way!

---

Not even a year. The dress she says she was wearing wasn't even made until 2 years after she said the "attack" happened.

She, lying two front door Ford, was at Congressional CC bumping nasties with the assistant golf pros was one thing people remembered.

How the hell did Trump lose the sexual assault case when she had such a poor memory? Did his lawyers not question her friends that claim she told them about the assault? Donald Trump was a household name before the 90's. How the hell would you forget the day and month, let alone the year a celebrity assaulted you?

93MarineHorn said:

---

How the hell did Trump lose the sexual assault case when she had such a poor memory? Did his lawyers not question her friends that claim she told them about the assault? Donald Trump was a household name before the 90's. How the hell would you forget the day and month, let alone the year a celebrity assaulted you?

---

Biased judge and jury would be my only guess. The whole thing is extremely hard to believe. Raped her in a dressing room in a department store that was open for business. Didn't even write it in her diary.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

93MarineHorn said:

---

How the hell did Trump lose the sexual assault case when she had such a poor memory? Did his lawyers not question her friends that claim she told them about the assault? Donald Trump was a household name before the 90's. How the hell would you forget the day and month, let alone the year a celebrity assaulted you?

---

He didn't take the stand to refute anything she said. All they had was cross-examination.

Carroll II was handled really, really poorly.

HTownAg98 said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

How the hell did Trump lose the sexual assault case when she had such a poor memory? Did his lawyers not question her friends that claim she told them about the assault? Donald Trump was a household name before the 90's. How the hell would you forget the day and month, let alone the year a celebrity assaulted you?

---

He didn't take the stand to refute anything she said. All they had was cross-examination.

Carroll II was handled really, really poorly.

---

How could he refute anything when she couldn't give a time of the "assault"? What else can you say but "I didn't do it?"

I don't understand how any case like this is allowed to proceed when the plaintiff can't even say what f'ing year the assault happened. The defendant can't make a defense. It's ludicrous.

Finished up Day 5. Birnbach testified she had a four minute conversation with Carroll at "between six or seven pm" on the day it supposedly happened, sometime in the spring of 1996, she "thinks."

Then she never spoke with Carroll again about the incident until 2019 when Carroll was about to publish her book.

During the four minute conversation, she advised Carroll to go to the police, offered to take her but Carroll refused and they fought briefly about it before they hung up.

Flash forward to 2019 and Birnbach is invited along with Carole Martin to a lunch to meet with reporter(s) from the NY Times to discuss their knowledge of the incident from somtime in 1996.

She admits to a virulent hatred of Trump and her podcasts support that. She's a Russia, Russia Russia believer.

Next is Jessical Leeds. She claims Trump groped her in first class (after eating a meal, apparently) on a Branniff flight sometime between 1978-1980 and she's not sure where the flight originated. Also said she had no idea who he was at the time.Never told anyone until 2016 when she went public to prevent Trump from being elected.

Next up was a retired Bergdorf's security guy who worked there in the 90s. Said he saw Trump in Bergdorf's once or twice but no knowledge of the incident in question, just that Trump shopped there.

Final witness is the beginning of the testimony of the plaintiff's expert on trauma from sexual abuse. Dr. Lebowitz. Barely got started on direct before adjourning for the day.

On to Day 6th!

Quote:

---

Less than 5 minutes of contrition, along with some decent lawyering for the defendant, and there would not have been a preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of sexual assault. The reason he lost that trial was he provided no evidence, not that the jury didn't believe it

---

What evidence could he possibly provide? The lying twit couldn't provide the year of the alleged assault, let alone the specific day and time. Had she provided an exact date he could have mounted a defense. People he had spoken with before and after could have been call to testify. Store employees could have been questioned. What the hell would you have him say on the stand if you were his lawyer? it's silly.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

Less than 5 minutes of contrition, along with some decent lawyering for the defendant, and there would not have been a preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of sexual assault. The reason he lost that trial was he provided no evidence, not that the jury didn't believe it

---

What evidence could he possibly provide? The lying twit couldn't provide the year of the alleged assault, let alone the specific day and time. Had she provided an exact date he could have mounted a defense. People he had spoken with before and after could have been call to testify. Store employees could have been questioned. What the hell would you have him say on the stand if you were his lawyer? it's silly.

---

I was thinking about that. Bergdorf's is known for the catering to the rich and famous. They have personal shoppers available for them. When this story first broke, I wondered is Trump had had a personal shopper back then and if they were still alive and sentient. Guess not.

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

aggiehawg said:

---

Finished up Day 5. Birnbach testified she had a four minute conversation with Carroll at "between six or seven pm" on the day it supposedly happened, sometime in the spring of 1996, she "thinks."

Then she never spoke with Carroll again about the incident until 2019 when Carroll was about to publish her book.

During the four minute conversation, she advised Carroll to go to the police, offered to take her but Carroll refused and they fought briefly about it before they hung up.

Flash forward to 2019 and Birnbach is invited along with Carole Martin to a lunch to meet with reporter(s) from the NY Times to discuss their knowledge of the incident from somtime in 1996.

She admits to a virulent hatred of Trump and her podcasts support that. She's a Russia, Russia Russia believer.

Next is Jessical Leeds. She claims Trump groped her in first class (after eating a meal, apparently) on a Branniff flight sometime between 1978-1980 and she's not sure where the flight originated. Also said she had no idea who he was at the time.Never told anyone until 2016 when she went public to prevent Trump from being elected.

Next up was a retired Bergdorf's security guy who worked there in the 90s. Said he saw Trump in Bergdorf's once or twice but no knowledge of the incident in question, just that Trump shopped there.

Final witness is the beginning of the testimony of the plaintiff's expert on trauma from sexual abuse. Dr. Lebowitz. Barely got started on direct before adjourning for the day.

On to Day 6th!

---

Does it smell to anyone other than me that Birnbach can't remember what year it was, over a decade earlier, but can remember it was a four minute conversation between six and seven pm on that day?

The BS smell stinks to high heaven.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

Well the judge kept interrupting all of their attempted cross examination efforts ordering them to move on and sustaining every objection made by Carroll's counsel even without any apparent grounds for either the objection or why the judge sustained them.

I have seen some crotchety judges in my day but this guy is way over the top for lack of judicial temperament.

Ah we finally get it, you believe Carroll.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

I'm sorry, what things should his defense counsel have done? Outside of attacking her character (good luck with that after me too), what could they do? They made it clear to the jury that Carroll couldn't credibly say what YEAR the assault occurred. You have a jury of libs that hate Trump and they decided that it didn't matter. The fact that you think Trump just had bad lawyers doesn't speak well of the case. You know the case is fos but you don't give a damn, just like the libs sitting on the jury and the Dem judge sitting on the bench. It's pathetic.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

The point seems to be flying right over your head. If you are accused of something, but no date - including the year - is given, how do you mount a defense?

If someone shows up and accuses you of assaulting her sometime in the in the 4 years you attended A&M at the Dillards on Harvey Road, how can you defend yourself other than saying it never happened? How do you provide an alibi?

judge:

well it could have been kissing they based the verdict on, but I'm deciding that it wasn't kissing because I think the verdict 'implies that'. (and oh by the way, I''ll later instruct the jury in another trial that it was 'determined' that penetration occurred, although that is not at all what was determined but was instead 'implied' by me).

and while the jury found no rape under the law, I'm deciding that for defamation purposes, it was true that he raped her...

"The jury was instructed that one of the essential elements of sexual abuse under the New York Penal Law is "sexual contact," defined as "touching of the sexual or intimate parts." None of these actions, other than putting his mouth against hers and perhaps pulling down her tights, was sexual contact.72 The jury's finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina." "Even assuming this non-consensual kiss was "touching of [a] sexual or intimate part[]," there is no basis to assume that the jury found Mr. Trump sexually abused her based on that contact but not on digital penetration."

rape is an option: ***** penetration; jury says no to this
'sexual abuse is an option': anything from kissing to Digital penetration; jury says yes to this
forcibly touch is an option: not answered

not sure why the middle answer 'implies' anything specific within the range of things it could have entailed - it seems that it 'implies' exactly what it could have entailed - anything from kissing to digital penetration

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24370424-kaplan-denies-trump-motion-for-new-trial-in-carroll-ii

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

The point seems to be flying right over your head. If you are accused of something, but no date - including the year - is given, how do you mount a defense?

If someone shows up and accuses you of assaulting her sometime in the in the 4 years you attended A&M at the Dillards on Harvey Road, how can you defend yourself other than saying it never happened? How do you provide an alibi?

---

And if you say it never happened, you're on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in defamation.

The fact that some people think this whole thing is legit and okay is extremely scary.

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

The point seems to be flying right over your head. If you are accused of something, but no date - including the year - is given, how do you mount a defense?

If someone shows up and accuses you of assaulting her sometime in the in the 4 years you attended A&M at the Dillards on Harvey Road, how can you defend yourself other than saying it never happened? How do you provide an alibi?

---

You get on the stand and categorically deny it, at a bare minimum. That would be more than they actually did which was nothing. They literally did nothing. The defense rested after the plaintiff rested.

Aggies2009 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

The point seems to be flying right over your head. If you are accused of something, but no date - including the year - is given, how do you mount a defense?

If someone shows up and accuses you of assaulting her sometime in the in the 4 years you attended A&M at the Dillards on Harvey Road, how can you defend yourself other than saying it never happened? How do you provide an alibi?

---

And if you say it never happened, you're on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in defamation.

The fact that some people think this whole thing is legit and okay is extremely scary.

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

The point seems to be flying right over your head. If you are accused of something, but no date - including the year - is given, how do you mount a defense?

If someone shows up and accuses you of assaulting her sometime in the in the 4 years you attended A&M at the Dillards on Harvey Road, how can you defend yourself other than saying it never happened? How do you provide an alibi?

---

You get on the stand and categorically deny it, at a bare minimum. That would be more than they actually did which was nothing. They literally did nothing. The defense rested after the plaintiff rested.

---

What good would that have done? If the accuser can't even recall the year in which it happened (and claimed she wore clothes that didn't exist at the time) and the jury says, "Sure! We believe that!", do you honestly think that Trump saying it didn't happen would have made ANY difference?

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

Well the judge kept interrupting all of their attempted cross examination efforts ordering them to move on and sustaining every objection made by Carroll's counsel even without any apparent grounds for either the objection or why the judge sustained them.

I have seen some crotchety judges in my day but this guy is way over the top for lack of judicial temperament.

---

How much of that do you think is due to the judge being a crotchety old fart versus Alina Habba not having a clue as to what she's doing?

HTownAg98 said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

The point seems to be flying right over your head. If you are accused of something, but no date - including the year - is given, how do you mount a defense?

If someone shows up and accuses you of assaulting her sometime in the in the 4 years you attended A&M at the Dillards on Harvey Road, how can you defend yourself other than saying it never happened? How do you provide an alibi?

---

And if you say it never happened, you're on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in defamation.

The fact that some people think this whole thing is legit and okay is extremely scary.

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Weird. When Hillary claimed that if you "drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park" to find an accuser in response to her husband being accused of sexual assault, I don't remember there being an $83 million verdict against her. It's almost like the judge and jury are biased and this whole thing is a sham, huh?

Wow, might want to take a step back from the propaganda machine for awhile.

And how is that defamatory?

It would imply that Bill Clinton's accuser was only after money, and because she was poor white trash, that she would make these accusations for a relatively small amount of money.

But you already know that

HTownAg98 said:

---

And how is that defamatory?

---

Is it not claiming that some random white trash was paid to accuse Bill? Isn't that what you JUST said was the issue here? That you can't claim someone was paid to accuse?

1939 said:

---

It would imply that Bill Clinton's accuser was only after money, and because she was poor white trash, that she would make these accusations for a relatively small amount of money.

But you already know that

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Whoops.