They said, however, he did not r@pe her in a different count.

Also note that this is a defamation case, plus, I guess, a battery case.

A leftist I would consider unreliable says that Trump's defense closed without offering a defense. That doesn't mean there was no defense; the defense gets to ask challenging questions of the complaining party's witnesses, particularly of E. Jean Carroll herself. In other words, a lot of the defense comes during the complaining party's case. But it means they closed without putting on their own witnesses or calling Trump to the stand to testify. Trump testifying would be the main defense, but I guess they didn't want Trump on the stand. Manhattan's Soros DA would scan his every statement for a likely perjury charge.

The jury has awarded her $2 million.

Trump reacted:

Here's what I'm going to guess got her her partial victory:

Her lawyers repeatedly played this clip from Trump's deposition, in which he stands by his "grab them by the p*ssy" line.

He doesn't give the answer I assumed he would -- that he was exaggerating for effect.

He says that women really do let "stars" "grab them by the p*ssy," and have for "the last million years."

He then refuses to say that this was merely "locker-room talk."

Why does he say this? Is it because he really does do this?

I have no idea why someone would say that.

I'm guessing this New York City jury is attempting to punish Trump for his old "grab them by the p*ssy" comments, and using the pretext that "if he said that, he'd really do it" to justify their verdict.

Meanwhile, Anthony Blinken, who organized the "51 Intelligence Officials" letter and then lied to Congress about his involvement in it as well as his relationship with Hunter Biden himself, has ignored repeated congressional subpoenas and faces possible charges over it.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken could soon face a contempt of Congress charge after his office ignored multiple subpoenas for documents from the Republican-led House Oversight Committee.

House Oversight Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, says Blinken and the State Department have blown past multiple deadlines to provide documents relating to President Biden's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan in recent months. He is now threatening to hold the top Biden official in contempt if he continues to refuse to provide the documents.

"The Department is now in violation of its legal obligation to produce these documents and must do so immediately," McCaul wrote in a Monday statement. "Should the Department fail to comply with its legal obligation, the Committee is prepared to take the necessary steps to enforce its subpoena, including holding you in contempt of Congress and/or initiating a civil enforcement proceeding."

Say -- Steve Bannon was prosecuted and convicted of a felony for that, wasn't he?

Anyone think that Merrick Garland's DOJ will be prosecuting this obstruction of Congress charge, or nah?