After all, a handful of well-known Republicans have taken Donald Trump's civil conviction in the first instance for sexual assault as an opportunity to cautiously express doubts as to whether a candidate with so many "legal squabbles" would be the best choice to retake the White House for the Republicans. Wouldn't that "distract" too much from the political message?
This is a far cry from the long overdue observation that sexual assault is a very serious allegation, and that women on both sides of the political divide in the United States have had bitter experiences with widespread impunity. In any case, those in the Republican Party who dismiss the indictment and proceedings as a "joke" in chorus with the former president are louder.
In this case, too, it is not too difficult for the Trump camp to turn its gaze away from the serious allegations and towards the alleged "witch hunt". Even the indictment that a New York grand jury recently brought against Trump because the hush money payment to actress Stormy Daniels violated campaign financing laws can easily be dismissed from a Trumpist point of view by pointing out that a Democratic prosecutor has pursued the matter and thus merely fulfilled an election promise. For example, the fact that Trump is the first former president to be criminally impeached is losing its weight in a large part of the electorate.
The never-ending fairy tale of the witch hunt
In the case of sexual assault – the plaintiff E. Jean Carroll had even raised the further accusation of rape – Trump's advocates are pointing to the "activist" law that made the lawsuit possible in the first place. The Democratic-dominated New York state legislature had given victims of sexual assault a one-year window of opportunity to "get justice" in civil courts in long-ago, actually time-barred cases. In the wake of the Me Too movement, this law was intended to take into account the doctrine that women, especially in the past, had many reasons not to report sexual assault.
Only a tiny proportion of all rapists are convicted and punished by the state. One obstacle is the usually meager evidence. Testimony stands against testimony, and even in America, a criminal court may only convict a defendant if his guilt is established "beyond reasonable doubt."
However, the nine jurors who unanimously sentenced Trump to pay damages for sexual assault and defamation of the victim did not need to listen to any residual doubts. They would only have to decide whether it is more likely that Trump committed the act, or that he did not commit it. In the balancing act, 51 percent is enough.
Legally sensitive, politically unambiguous
The testimony of two friends, whom Carroll apparently confided in at the time, as well as the testimony of other women accusing Trump of incidents of a similar nature, were enough to say nothing of Trump's own disrespectful statements about women and his alleged grapscher special rights as a "star".
From a legal point of view, it is extremely delicate when the boundaries between civil and criminal law become blurred in such cases – even if sympathy for Trump is limited, it has always been part of his brand essence to sue everyone for damages, regardless of freedom of expression.
However, the voters who will soon be allowed to judge Trump again (at least the registered Republicans in the primaries) have it much easier than the criminal investigators and jurors. You just need to ask yourself a few questions.
Is Trump's version plausible that he never met all the women who detailed their allegations against Trump? Does it really say nothing about his image of women that in 2005 he boasted in front of the camera that he grabbed strangers' crotches without being asked? Does it speak to his innocence that he regularly dismisses rape allegations by pointing out that he considers the alleged victims ugly and would not approach them for that reason alone?
Or is it more likely that Trump is a narcissist who takes whatever he wants at any time without consideration, decency or respect?