Not categorically, no. But we can all agree that he's lying when he says he's never met her. I mean why even bother saying that when everyone knows it's clearly not true.
These were his exact words last night:
"This woman, I don't know her, I've never met her, I've no idea who she is. I had a picture taken years ago with her and her husband, nice guy, John Johnson. He was a newscaster, very nice man."
He immediately contradicts himself there. And goes to great pains to stress what a top bloke her husband was, so it's a bit of a stretch to believe he honestly has no idea who she is. Given that his deposition was filled with similar nonsense, it's little surprise the jury didn't take his side.
That's disappointing and a bit odd considering how many times she pulled Trump up last night on his lies.
Unfortunately she’s very much another right wing weirdo….
I get that
but she really didn't show that last night in the way she questioned and handled Trumps lies. she was very good in my opinion and showed him up many times. hence why he called her horrible and showed what a misogynist he is.
I'm saying that any normal person (i.e., someone telling the truth) doesn't repeatedly say they've never met someone when they know full well they have. He doesn't have to remember it, but when presented with the photo, common sense would dictate that you drop that line of defence as it's so patently ludicrous. He also seems to have a very clear recollection of meeting her husband, which casts further doubt on what he's saying.So, you're saying that based upon a technical meeting of a snapshot that he 'met' her?? Out of the literal thousands of women he must have met in 30-40 years, he must know her well?
Like a famous footballer that takes a snap with a fan at a football gala/ dinner/ outside a ground??
Fine, if that's your definition of 'met'.
I think it's a disingenuous position to take.
I'm saying that any normal person (i.e., someone telling the truth) doesn't repeatedly say they've never met someone when they know full well they have. He doesn't have to remember it, but when presented with the photo, common sense would dictate that you drop that line of defence as it's so patently ludicrous. He also seems to have a very clear recollection of meeting her husband, which casts further doubt on what he's saying.
Then we have the ridiculousness of him mistaking her for his ex-wife after claiming she wasn't at all his type.
The charges didn't have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt as it was a civil case, not criminal. So, in a case that essentially boiled down to who the jury believed more, he went with his default setting of just repeatedly lying. Not particularly clever and he got what he deserved in my opinion after his ridiculous deposition.
I'm saying that any normal person (i.e., someone telling the truth) doesn't repeatedly say they've never met someone when they know full well they have. He doesn't have to remember it, but when presented with the photo, common sense would dictate that you drop that line of defence as it's so patently ludicrous. He also seems to have a very clear recollection of meeting her husband, which casts further doubt on what he's saying.
Then we have the ridiculousness of him mistaking her for his ex-wife after claiming she wasn't at all his type.
The charges didn't have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt as it was a civil case, not criminal. So, in a case that essentially boiled down to who the jury believed more, he went with his default setting of just repeatedly lying. Not particularly clever and he got what he deserved in my opinion after his ridiculous deposition.
Surely this isn't "she said, he said"?
It's "she said, he didn't say anything or show up apart from a deposition video".
Not appearing means there the jury could not assess his own statements live in court. I assume they did have him bragging about it and that odious deposition "unfortunately or fortunately".
Offering no counterpoint is a good way of being found guilty.
Claiming something which is demonstrably untrue (such as "I've never met her") is a good way of convincing a jury to support the other side.