UPDATE: There was not. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, granted the request of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) office to keep the case in New York state court..
I want everyone to read that bolded part.The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event. Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties
A judge had to say that. A judge, a federal US court judge, had to say, in an official court ruling, in an official court document, that paying off a porn star was not Presidential business.
He couldn't, because of the situation we find ourselves in, he couldn't just let that be implied, or assumed, or common knowledge.
He. Had. To write. That.
And file it, forever memorialized, in the records of US legal law.
Paying off a whore is not Presidential. He had to write that. That's on the US's permanent record now, that this was a court case that came up and had to be decided and written down for future use.
@cubby please opine. I'm begging you.
- - - Updated - - -
Trump loses in court for something that I hope is uniquely Trumpian.
So, we all by now know Trump was found liable in court. And he appealed to have the $5 million reduced on the grounds...well, we have a ruling:
-- the judgeThe finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was 'raped' within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape'. Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.
Yes, Trump tried to have the damages thrown out because Carroll used the word rape and Trump went with "But I only sexually assaulted her, not rape, I should get a discount".