The Case: “…raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan in either 1995 or 1996.” And defamed her by denying it and calling her a liar.
From the comments:
Defendants not testifying in their own defense is the norm.
It may have been a civil trial, but the things Trump was accused of are crimes, albeit crimes past the statute of limitations. It would have been extremely foolish for Trump, given the array of enemies against him, to allow himself to be subject to cross examination.
It’s bad enough that the civil court system allows people to be punished for crimes for which the criminal justice system has chosen or is legislatively prohibited from punishing them, but New York specifically passed a law to allow this trial, waiving the civil statue of limitations in certain cases for one year. She filed charges under the Adult Survivor’s Act which was passed in New York last year. It allows retroactive filing of accusations of sexual offenses that normally would be past the statute of limitations between November 24, 2022, and November 24, 2023.
This selective waiving of the right of the accused to be safe from long-delayed accusations is an affront to justice.
… also…
The mere fact that he was persecuted on 30-year-old unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and unreported rape charges, without even a specific date alleged to be able to provide an alibi for is simply ridiculous.
…
By not testifying he avoided any perjury traps they had prepared.
…
…his was a very hostile judge and jury that didn’t like him and was going to find him guilty of something regardless of his actual innocence or not. Him testifying would have at best done nothing and at worst harmed him. Additionally, his testimony might have ended up in a Democrat or #NeverTrump campaign commercial.
…
The judge prevented Trump Team from asking a lot of questions such as why she never reported this, why she didn’t attempted to get security camera footage, why she didn’t attempt to have Trump proscututed, She couldn’t even pin point and approximant month or year it happened.
What defense can you put on when the judge put the finger on the trial to even stop questions to even attack the credibility of her testimony . They weren’t allowed to tell the jury about the person funding the lawsuit, they weren’t allowed to point out she was being paid to tell this story and paid bring this lawsuit.
A man who owns multiple Hotels and homes in the NYC area is going to assault a woman in the dressing room of a busy NYC store?
It was a political show trial and Trump declined to appear and perform.
On the North River 
That echo you hear is the backfire from this witch hunt, since the vast majority of thinking voters clearly see the hit job for what it was. The only thing that hag will see is the thank-you note sent from the Trump campaign, right after he gets elected (assuming, of course, that the Republicans are willing to cheat along with the Dems). This gets blown out of court on appeal.
LikeLike
The New York State law that enabled this trial travesty.
Wikipedia incorrectly stated that the sexual assault charge was proved.
Consider. The State of New York, not just one Soros DA, connived to change the laws on Statue of Limitations just long enough to drag Donald Trump’s name into court. And that’s all they had in court, his name.
This is unique in American history.
And for the “Only read the headline” crowd, it’s effective.
The House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States should draft a resolution condemning this act. Which is the very definition of a Bill of Attainder.
LikeLike