You’re talking politics and elections again. I’m not interested in how this affects his election chances, that’s a DIFFERENT MATTER. I’m only interested in THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER HE INDEED DO WHAT SHE ACCUSED HIM OF DOING! In other words, is he REALLY GUILTY of what the jury decided he did?
Winning in court does not necessarily mean that the decision conforms to the truth. Just as OJ’s victory in his criminal trial did little to prove his innocence.
If this jury decided so, on what basis? What evidence? I have not seen anyone in this thread answer my question yet.
This judgment in this case has everything to do with the election because a former president and current leading contender for President is involved that alone makes the case important
Regardless of the evidence an appeals court will decide that which is all you can hope for at this point