he's an adjudicated sexual abuser? Why wouldn't you say sexual abuser? Why? Because the case was a civil trial, not a criminal. And the claimant is not credible in my opinion and lots of other people's opinions. So we don't actually know if he sexually abused anybody. And honestly it sounds pretty unlikely to me, the specific claim. So he has to say it's adjudicated, which means that a New York jury found him guilty. So in other words people who don't like Trump in the unfriendliest Trump place decided it was slightly more true that this woman was telling the truth and therefore he had to pay some money. So the New York Times instead of saying it's a he-said-she-said situation they say he's an adjudicated sexual abuser. Because if you don't know the story you'd say, "Oh I guess the evidence showed in a criminal case that he's a criminal abuser." Nope, nope. That's a claim with a very low level of credibility. Doesn't mean it's fake. But if you're a journalist and you act like it's credible that's not true.

And remember credible doesn't mean true or not true. It just means on the surface is this something you would trust? They say he's a business fraudster. Was that because of the belief that he exaggerated his assets exactly the way everybody does in that business and the bank didn't care and they knew it was an exaggeration because everybody exaggerates so they checked themselves as they always do so there was no fraud whatsoever and they'd be happy to work with him? Or was he talking about Trump University which was definitely a sketchy situation but where's the reporting on how much Trump knew? Do you think Trump was getting into the details of Trump University? Do y