jerrymahoney

You may be right. The Trump team decided against it. He denied the whole thing in video tape deposition part of which, at least, was shown in Court.

Yes and he could have sent (the late) Groucho Marx instead and it would still be the same.

Yes. He could say: "Whenever she says I was there, I wasn't there. And I don't know where I was when I wasn't there at the time she says I was there."

He wasn't where when? Even if he had showed up he ,ouldn't answer that one. Tacopina feels he has the grounds for an appeal. Ball is in his court.

Some do. Or at least when they get home. But as Tacopina pointed out, the lack of a date, even if true as to why the lack of a date, meant that Trump was not able to offer an alibi.

As neither Ms. Carroll, Ms. Martin, nor Ms. Birnbach -- all 3 at the time professional journalists -- made any written notes nor did the other 2 witnesses observe Ms. Carroll in person for any physical injury from the assault, there is really nothing to say that the 2 phone calls were not made contemporaneously but not until long after the alleged encounter with DJT.

This is from the original complaint (with no maybe's) p. 6 Trump then pushed his fingers around Carroll’s genitals and forced his penis inside of her. 37. p. 7 She told Birnbach how Trump had pulled down her tights and put his penis inside of her. 44.

Lack of evidence, just an accusation The case was filed under a special temporary NY State law that allows for a suspension of statute of limitations for civil only sexual offenses. It was filed in Federal court because the parties have different states of residence i.e. Florida and NY State.

No. "There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents someone who has been charged or convicted from serving." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-trump-still-run-for-president-2024/

To the jury, apparently, that wasn't clear.

This is the original complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23317687-e-jean-carroll-v-donald-trump-112422 It mentions the word 'rape' 36 times.

Donald Trump's attorney Joe Tacopina called the jury's decision in the civil trial Tuesday a "strange verdict," noting that the jury rejected the rape claim against his client. While the jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in 1996, sufficient to hold him liable for battery, the jury did not find that Carroll proved he raped her. Tacopina, speaking outside the Manhattan courthouse, said that they would "obviously" be appealing the verdict. https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/e-jean-carroll-trump-trial-verdict-05-09-23/index.html But, at least for me, it's Georgia on my Mind

I only recently moved to Ubon and had never met Ubon Joe. But I was close enough by that I went there early. Mostly chatted with the American Legion group, several of whom I had met before at US Embassy outreach. So informally paid my respects as several family members gave a wai back. I just wanted to show up.

From the above Politico.com link: Another member of Carroll’s defense team, Mike Ferrara, argued that some of the holes in Carroll’s account, primarily the fact that she can’t recall the precise date on which the alleged rape occurred, actually bolster her credibility. If she were manufacturing the story, Ferrara said, she would have named a date to avoid criticism over her failure to do so. ********* If Carroll were making it up, and gave a date say April 10, 1996, Trump may have records that on April 10, 1996 he was opening a new hotel in Rio de Janeiro and here he is in the local newspaper. So the psycho-excuses as to why Ms. Carroll "can't pin down the date" are consistent with making it up.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio Henry "Enrique" Tarrio ... born 1984 or 1985 is an American far-right activist. From 2018 to 2021, he was the chairman of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist, exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States. Along with three other Proud Boys leaders, Tarrio was convicted on May 4, 2023, of seditious conspiracy, for his role in the 2021 United States Capitol attack.

Per Judge Kaplan's ruling on DNA: (Judge) Kaplan also questioned how worthwhile the evidence would be, noting there is no evidence of any sperm cells on the dress. So even if there were a match, "it would not prove or disprove Ms. Carroll's rape allegation," he said. And if there were no match, it "would not disprove Ms. Carroll's accusation." "The alleged rape could have occurred without a sufficient quantity or quality of Mr. Trump's DNA to have remained on the dress since the mid-1990s," (Judge Kaplan) noted. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-dna-will-not-used-civil-trial-writer-accused-rape-judge-rules-rcna70807

So if you were on the jury it would be all over.

The DNA sample on the dress was not a sperm sample. The 5th amendment against self-incrimination is for criminal offenses.

... the jury will be asked to decide: Which side is supported by a “preponderance of the evidence”? This is a lower burden of proof compared with a criminal case, which demands that jurors find a defendant guilty only if his guilt is proved “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But there has been no physical evidence presented in the case. Carroll has said she cannot remember the exact date of the alleged assault, which means that Trump can neither provide an alibi nor have his whereabouts called into question. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trial-jury-trump-lawyer-rape-truth-lies.html 05MAY2023

You must have me confused with someone else.

Because if Trump wins on his motion, the elector issue is moot

I didn't say that.

Stay tuned.

Because the DA has to reply by 15 MAY to the Trump motion which, if Trump won, would make the phony elector issuer moot as the entire Special Grand Jury investigation would be thrown out. MOTION TO QUASH THE SPECIAL PURPOSE GRAND JURY REPORT, TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF ANY EVIDENCE DERIVED THEREFROM, AND TO RECUSE THE FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23718117/ex-parte-fulton-county-grand-jury-03-20-2023-102331-37306996-f8b43da6-144b-4544-ab53-4095c1c5f36d-2.pdf

If you mean do I agree that DA Willis gave out immunity for nothing in return, then No.