I'm pointing out that the jury did not decide, one way or other, about the accusation of being penetrated with a finger.

While we can say for sure the jury rejected the accusation of penetration with a penis, but we have no ruling about the finger. The only people who made this assertion was the accuser and this judge.

While it is widely understood that the sexual assault charge specifically requires the finger penetration, despite pointing this out specifically, the Judge, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, instructed the jury with an extra portion explaining clearly that this not required and misleading the jury with an extremely wide and vague different requirement. This could easily include kissing, hugging, touching of the elbow even, if the jury could assume it was in a sexy way.

With a long and non-professional diatribe, rather than a ruling, every opportunity was made to insult and disparage Trump, but no attempt was made to address the motion's concerns. Instead, embedded in the 59 page insult narrative, was the confirmation of the concerns of trial flaws the motion brought forth. The judge confirmed that penetration is required for sexual assault in this context, then provides the jury instructions stating it isn't required, then additionally goes on to falsely declare that the jury "inferred" that Trump penetrated her with his finger, by ruling in favor of sexual assault money.

Very much about this trial was very non standard and reeking of bias and a unfair trial. This jury instruction was an insurance plan, ensuring he wouldn't walk away completely vindicated, as anything could be considered sexual assault. Then, after ruling, they brought in a person unqualified for the position, to decide the monetary damages, who suggested an absolutely insanely exaggerated amount, inconsistent with the charges, context, and common sense.

The court trial was a blatant hatched job.

No one can know what really happened, but the accuser has contradicted and denied all these accusations in the past. She had also failed in court previously. She was only trying again because Trump's political enemies pushed her to do so and gave her a very lot of money to do it and cover legal costs. On the stand, she testified that she did not say "no", and that she likely "led him on," instigating their romantic escapade. She presented zero evidence. She made accusations and brought 2 people in who testified that she talked of the romantic night to them so many decades ago, although their testimony made it sound like she was more-so gloating, with an after thought of otherwise.

This was a civil case, a lawsuit. The New York statues of limitations for the criminal charges accused had already expired, so Trump could freely defend himself against the accusation......yet, anti-Trump New York political enemies, specifically changed the law, extended the statutes of limitations, the previous year in anticipation of Trump's lawsuit.

This caused Trump to be unable to defend himself in this civil case. Doing so would only provide testimony that could be spun into incriminating evidence of a very serious criminal charge. Trump had cross examined the witnesses, but did not testify or make much of any kind of defense due to this risk of criminal charges.

The whole lawsuit was a trap, hoping to manipulate Trump in to having only two options: Don't defend yourself, getting slammed for extremely questionable civil accusations, and just sit there quietly being overly and corruptly railroaded...... or open your mouth and get corruptly railroaded into a prison sentence for criminal charges based on the same evidence-less and questionable accusations that changed over the years.

Everyone should have a fair trial; this was not.