Trump’s $83 Million Judgement & the Scene of the Crime – a Store Called Bergdorf Goodman.

Anyone who has been to Bergdorf Goodman knows you don’t wander around the store for long on you own. There are no bargain basement days of rooting around for yesterday’s reject. This store is for the rich, actually for the very rich and the rich like to be well attended. And so they are. The store? A setting for numerous films where glamor reigns.

If there is any argument as to why the sexual assault charges against Trump, given by someone who is selling a book, is not true, the scene of the crime may reveal it all.

Miss Marple AKA Bunk takes you first to the scene of the so called crime.

Let’s take a quick look.  

The Ultimate Party | Bergdorf Goodman. This is not Walmart.

The idea that some male, as well known as Trump, even back in the day, would be wandering around, by himself, on his own in area of the the ladies dressing room is simply absurd. There would be other salespeople, salespeople attending customers, attending the so called victim. Salespeople in attendance, exchanging clothes tried on. As if Bergdorf would ever leave the women’s dressing area unattended for the very CHICHI “The Ladies Who Lunch.” titled women.

No salesperson witnessed nor heard anything, no complaints at the time made to anyone associated with the store by the victim. Nothing to the police, then, 25 to 35 years later when she couldn’t remember the exact year or month the incident took place, only then she claims it took place.

Keep in mind this is not the jury that convicted him of the sexual assault – no, it’s over a charge he maligned her in statements. The man is not allowed to defend himself.

Here we go with the rest of the story:

Friday, a crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Goodman store some 25 or maybe 30 years ago and raped her in a dressing room where they were trying on lingerie. The entire story lacks credulity and is like something from a Law and Order sketch.

Trump Attorney Alina Habba described to reporters how villainous the court treated President Trump and his team during the show trial.

Attorney Alina Habba: Ladies and gentlemen, you are not allowed to be stripped of every defense that you have. You are not allowed to be told that you can’t bring it up. And imagine a point where a judge tells the lawyer before your client, the former President of the United States, the leading candidate and obvious nominee for the Republican Party, before he takes the stand to defend himself. Ms. Haba, tell me the questions you’re going to ask in open court and tell me exactly what he’s going to respond. And then edited my questions, edited the response he was allowed to give…

…We will immediately appeal. We will set aside that ridiculous jury. And I just want to remind you all of one thing. I will continue with President Trump to fight for everybody’s first Amendment right to speak.

On Friday Rudy explained to Rob Schmitt why this case should have been tossed from the courtroom before it ever started.

Rob Schmitt: Former New York mayor and U. S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani joins us tonight with his perspective on this. What has happened to our legal system, sir?

Rudy Giuliani: Yeah, it’s gone to hell. That’s what’s happened. I mean, we have an embarrassing situation in the United States in which we’re a country without laws. We don’t follow the laws that we have. First of all, it’s patently absurd that this even happened. I’ve been going to Bergdorf for 30 years, and when I was us attorney, I wasn’t all that well known. But the minute I walked into Bergdorf, about ten people had come around me to help me. This man was one of the most famous people in New York at the time this happened. This would be like doing this in the middle of Madison Square Garden. It’s totally ridiculous.

 

Second thing that’s ridiculous is I don’t know why this case isn’t thrown out. You’re supposed to plead a tort, which is what this is. Right, with specificity. Specificity means to give you enough information as a defendant so you can defend yourself. When you can’t give me a day and time, how the hell can I defend myself? 

Now, why doesn’t she do that? She doesn’t do it because trump travels a lot, and she just might pick a day because she’s lying her backside off. She might pick a day in which he was in Scotland or a day in which he was in Mar a Lago, or a day in which the way they did to Michael Cohen, when they said he was in poland meeting with the Russians and he was in California…

…This judge is a pure disgrace. He’s telling a lawyer what questions to ask. That’s totally ridiculous. He won’t let him defend himself. And how is it inconsistent? Let’s say, first of all, he was found not guilty or not liable for rape. It was sexual assault, not rape. And second, you can be guilty of rape, and still a person can be a whack up. That wasn’t defamation. You’re allowed to still defend yourself against defamation.

More at Gateway Pundit

It’s hard to find on Google, so here’s what you need to know about E. Jean Carroll, most of which was deemed “inadmissible” by the judge:

– She couldn’t recall the date, month, season, or year the incident happened – She never told anyone about it, despite being publicly obsessed with her own sexuality

– The dress she claims to have been wearing didn’t exist at the time – Her description of the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman was inaccurate, making her sequence of events impossible

– Her lawsuit was bankrolled by Jeffrey Epstein pal and Democrat (and Nikki Haley) mega-donor Reid Hoffman

– Democrats created a law (The Adult Survivors Act in 2022) to enable her lawsuit to proceed

– Her accusation is the exact plotline of an episode of Law & Order (one of her “favorite shows”) – Trump’s Apprentice was also one of her favorite shows – She has a history of falsely accusing men of r*pe, including Les Moonves

– She told Anderson Cooper, “most people think of r*pe as being sexy. Think of the fantasies.”

– She made a career promoting promiscuity, even writing glowingly of sexual assault and naming her cat Vagina.

– How many other high profile trials are you aware of where the defendant is not allowed to present exculpable evidence or testimony?

Breaking. A whole new avenue of appeal for Trump opens up.

IT WAS A UNITED FRONT… Trump’s Legal Team Reveals Shocking ‘Conflict of Interest’ in E. Jean Carroll Case: Judge Lewis Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll’s Lawyer Roberta Kaplan Worked Together at Same Law Firm — Judge Allegedly Served as Mentor