Proclaiming your innocence and attacking your accuser are two very different things.
If calling your accuser a liar is attacking them then no, but you're the dishonest type so I wouldn't expect you to admit that.
Trump denied having met her altogether and repeated this claim despite it being proven factually incorrect.
Being in the same room with someone doesn't constitute meeting. Nothing of the sort was proven.
He accused her of being some attention whore trying to make up her story to sell books
he accused her of working with the democrats to help them steel the election
Hilary accused Trump of working with russians to steal the election. Somehow she's not liable? (She would be in West Virginia, can't wait till the right-tribe figures that out)
he tried to paint her as some kind of sex feind by twisting her words
Let's be honest, normal people can get through life without accusing anybody of rape. Jean Carroll is something special. She either sniffs out and puts herself in the room with rapists or she lies.
Shit, I was so insensitive to your disability just then. Forget about that honesty stuff.
he did all of this from the bully pulpit of the presidency as well as that of a former president.
No special provisions to defamation statues revolve around being president. I'd say anything is fair when somebody writes a book where you are featured as a rapist.
Those comments alone might be written off as "he said she said"
Those comments don't need to be written off. "he said she said" is the state of the evidence that would exist if this supposed rape went to trial (a real trial). Of course then it would had meant not guilty. Today, with as last name of Trump of course guilty; but then they were real courts back then.
when the central allegation is adjudicated and a jury finds him liable for assaulting her
Ohh you're learning. Don't want those punitive damages to get any higher huh?
the only logical step is to find him liable for the defamation that followed.
Let's pretend that the judge, jury, plaintiff, and bailiff shouldn't be immediately imprisoned for extortion and/or impersonating officers of the court. Let's pretend that a civil case can establish a crime as a matter of fact.
It then follows that a criminal trial having a presumably greater burden of proof would also establish as a fact that a crime occurred. If it is then defamation to say someone is lying about something that is a fact in the eyes of the court, then surely anyone who has been convicted of a crime and called their accusers liars are liable for defamation right?
It then follows that it is impossible to assert ones innocence after being convicted without committing defamation. It then follows that any appeal of a conviction is also defamation.
Now are you really sure that this is the only logical step?
That's a rhetorical question, I know you wouldn't admit it even if you saw your error.
I'd say the next logical step is the state of affairs that existed for every other person under English common law systems (since like 1600ish) who aren't named Donald Trump (or associated): When you accuse someone of a crime (or any malfeasance really), you can't claim to be damaged when they call you a liar. In fact the only one who would ever be in danger of defamation is yourself.
You can pretend that isn't how the law works or shouldn't work all you want, it does and it should.
Sure pal, there are no such things as appeals.
If you don't care whether he was found liable by a jury in court of law of the underlying accusation then you can stop pretending you're defending the rule of law.
Just because you call yourself a court and locate your self in a building that resembles a court does not mean you're following the law.
"Defendants were often berated during the examination and never allowed to respond with any sort of lengthy reply."
The best outcome when nazis infest a court:
You're defending nothing more than your right to impose your will on everyone else because you don't like the outcome.
I don't like the outcome because it is an affront to justice.
God help us.
If he existed I wouldn't be talking to a hypocrite and a liar as if it mattered would I.
An attack on the liberal basis for law is an attack on everyone who the law is there to protect. It is an attack on me.
I know of a cult expert who once said: "The difference between a religion and a cult is that in a religion your savior sacrifices themselves for you, in a cult you sacrifice yourself for your savior"
You know what I think helps identify a cult. When you talk to them and what you say clearly goes through a translation matrix before it hits their cerebellum.
Like in this case "It is an attack on me" is clearly not the message your consciousness received. It was translated to "It is an attack on Trump only and I want to sacrifice myself for his sake even though were it anyone else he would deserve it"
Or maybe you know exactly what I said, but you couldn't find a way to twist it into some pathetic non-sequiter so you just pretended I said something else, what you told me I believed instead of what I said.
I'll never know if you're a cultist or just a liar, just no way to tell over the internet.
Words I think about everytime I watch MAGA cultists defend the warping of their own minds.
So warped, that's why on every single issue you've ever tried to debate with me you end up in a circle of reassertion where you pretend you weren't proven wrong.
The reason Trump is in legal perril is because of his own actions.
I agree. The problem is the actions in question were legal. Specifically securing the border (or trying), ordering troop withdrawals (in an orderly manner), investigating corruption in Ukraine (ouch)!, but the worst of them all was not being Hilary Clinton and not playing ball with the Boltons, the Blackrocks, and the Lockheed Martins.
There is nothing about anything Trump has been criminally or civilly attacked over that is even remotely unique to him. Even the incitement of a riot was done a few years earlier by left-tribers and it could be quite sanely argued that they intended to incite a riot while he did not since he said "peacefully" and they implied the opposite.
Biden has been accused of sexual assault and kept classified documents in his corvette. Sure he handed them over, but that was an easy decision to make when he controlled the agency that was taking them.
The Clinton foundation was definitely a front for public corruption so that should have been the "charity found to be fraudulent".
The reason none of this goes anywhere is because the propagandist control the populations of the cities. The cities are where the corporations and politicians do there stuff. Thus the propagandist control the courts on all matters that involve the rich and powerful. They didn't need to destroy the courts till now, but now they have and you can't put the genie back int the bottle. Gona need to start with some fresh clay.
You claim he is being treated unfairly while he is objectively given deference beyond anything you or I would ever receive.
That's objective is it?
Perhaps your calculation doesn't include the charges and suits themselves. Left-tribers and right-tribers who play ball get the greatest deference of all: They don't go after them with made up crimes and absurd novel theories of law.
Have you ever seen a criminal defendant repeatedly attack the judge, the prosecutors, the witnesses, hell even the court staff and get away with it?
Yes it happens all the time. In fact it is specifically protected activity insofar as judges have been reversed simply because they showed how annoyed they were with being attacked.
and then people like you pretend he's the victim because he told you so.
He didn't have to tell me anything. All the lies and defamations against him prove the case far more than any assertion on his part. See post #189.
Just recently oromagi claimed he couldn't wear a hat. oromagi can clearly do a bit of thinking when he wants to. This is what TDS does to people. Night and day. Human being vs zombie.
You say it best:
It's utterly pathetic.
