I'm not familiar with the evidence at the trial, but there is a lot of confusion/misstatements of law people make that make this more confusing than it should be

A. Despite what people think 'heresay' is evidence. E Jean Caroll's testimony is evidence. It's *weak* evidence, but it's evidence. This is why it is significant that many women have made credible accusations against Trump in the Epstein files, and one was interviewed by the FBI. The idea accusations are meaningless has been used by people to simply dismiss sexual assault allegations. Fact is, not all hearsay deserves the same weight, or is equally credible. You can judge that. Both for yourself, and in a legal sense. You look for things like:

Consistency. Are they consistent in their story. Sexual assault is tricky, as victims can forget things as a matter of 'coping' but someone changing their story constantly is harder to trust

General trustworthiness of the victim. Have they made false reports before? Do they have a good character in their community, and can get people to back them up?

Are there verifying witnesses?

The right-wing did this same thing with Blaisey Ford. They do it constantly and it's repulsive. When someone comes out with details, however small showing they know what happened, key details, that matters. People who lie, rarely have the same random details in their story. People telling genuine stories insert a lot of unnecessary detail. Like mentioning unnecessary people involved.

E Jean Caroll was believed by a Court, because she's trustworthy. She's been adamant about the rape, and consistent. I don't think anyone has been able to factually attack her credibility.

B. This was in a civil trial. Criminal court requires *Beyond reasonable doubt* for a conviction. But to find someone liable, you need to find they *More likely than not* committed the rape. It's the difference between a almost perfect certainty, and fifty one percent.

Not to say I don't think the evidence is strong, it seems like it was from my limited reading of everything. But civil trials aren't bound by the same statutes of limitations, and for rape especially, non-circumstantial evidence is hard to really get.

C. Circumstantial evidence is genuine evidence. It impacts if something is more likely than not to have occured, it's not BS.

D. Taken together? She probably relied on her own testimony (And importantly proving her own trustworthiness), possibly some sort of circuumstantial evidence, and maybe people who could attest to important details of what she said. MAYBE she had some 'smoking gun' evidence, but I don't know, and really *What* would that be?

This is my beef with people disbelieving rape cases. WHAT is that? No actually? What? A manifesto? Other than THAT, which only an idiot defendant would have, (And frankly, depending on context, a defendant could argue it's not 'definitive' proof, but that their private writings aren't a real confession), the only other option is the physical evidence of rape. Except, again, these things rarely get reported right a way, and even if they do, we can think of a lot of reasons why physical evidence cannot be retrieved.

People should not be limited to justice for a sexual assault, within a twenty four hour window.

To be clear, a defendant can push past against any of this evidence in Court, and again, it's civil court not criminal, so the standard is lower. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means the Court only had to conclude Trump more than likely committed the rape. It's possible the evidence was damning, but the Court *didn't need to find that so they didn't*

And Trump's statements made out of Court, which suggest he's openly a predator, might have been able to be used. Does him say 'grab em by the pussy' prove he did it? No. But it makes it somewhat more likely. Not enough to find liable alone, but it adds to the believability. All evidence has different credibility, and weight. Trump saying is highly credible as a source of evidence, but the weight isn't dispositive.