>> 12 jurors disagree with you.
Actually, 7 jurors disagree with me. Two don't agree she was raped or penetrated otherwise. As you might be aware, this is how a civil trial works, NOT a criminal trial. Hence, there was no crime under any circumstance, since there was zero evidence. And the jury could not conclude a rape occurred on the evidence.
See how this works, when you're objective is merely to prevent re-election? You don't have to have truth; you just have to have a judge who is willing to break the rules. Which he did, time and again -- by excluding exculpatory evidence, and including stuff he wanted the jury to hear that wasn't evidence at all.
This was far from being a rape trial in the style of "To Kill a Mockingbird". Atticus Finch would have a cow.
IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, EVERYONE MUST AGREE: A CRIME OCCURRED. This isn't that. You can have four out of five disagree, and still make the man pay. And if he says words the judge doesn't like, you can make him pay $100 Million. That's right. For talking back the price of "justice" is multiplied by 20.
The entire point of this trial was to smear Trump with a rape. Nancy, your beloved Nancy, calls it a "wrap-up smear" -- they do it all the time. Where the media is convinced it should legitimize a smear against a political enemy. They deployed it daily against Trump.
If you believe there is a God, you have to believe there will be justice for Donald Trump. |
