She Said ...

She came out of the bathroom and he had stripped down to his underwear. He was waiting for her on the bed. He didn't ask about using a condom, and he didn't use one. Afterward, her hands were shaking so badly she couldn't fasten the straps on her shoes. She didn't say no, but then she didn't say yes either. No nonconsent, but a clear imbalance of power. She could have screamed, but she didn't. She saw him afterward, not because she was interested in pursuing a personal relationship but because he dangled the possibility of appearing on "Celebrity Apprentice." Of course, he has denied it ever happened, but he secretly paid her six figures weeks before the election to not tell anyone.

Just like he said on "Access Hollywood." When you're a celebrity, you can grab a woman by her private parts and do what you want. Not rape, exactly, but not lovemaking either. Closer to Harvey Weinstein than you'd ever want a jury to hear. Or your wife. Or women voters.

His lawyers, moving for a mistrial, claimed it was unduly prejudicial. Of course. That's the whole point of the case. If it weren't unduly prejudicial, then the president's men wouldn't have been as desperate as they were to make sure voters didn't hear about it. If he didn't have dirty laundry, he wouldn't have made common cause with the publisher of the National Enquirer to hide it.

Does it matter? Will it affect what voters think of him? Or is this just who they expect Donald Trump really is, what a ridiculously low bar of human conduct and character that he is held to?

Down and dirty sex with a porn star in a hotel room?

A one-night stand with a woman whose hands don't stop shaking?

Yes, I believe her. So did he, apparently, and he expected others would as well. He didn't attempt to disprove it. He paid and he obfuscated the payment. "Legal fees" to his fixer.

Is it a felony?

Not the sex part. It's the cover-up that should do him in. But the sex part is what really goes to character. Is this a man you want to see as president of the United States? A man who treats a woman like toilet paper, grabs her, uses her, throws her away.

Does she hate him, his lawyer asked, as if that would prove something.

Why wouldn't she? Is she supposed to like a man who treats her like that? What would it say if she did?

He didn't even bother with a condom. No protection -- for either of them. Ridiculously risky. Did he just assume she was somehow protected? Or that it was her problem. And what would he have done if she'd gotten pregnant? Having made his deal with the anti-abortion folks to get the nomination, did he just assume she would take care of things for him?

I expect no better from Trump. But do his supporters? How do his God-fearing Christian conservatives feel about this man? Legally speaking, it's just falsifying business records. But morally speaking? Is there still a moral majority in this country? Can they keep a straight face and justify the Stormy of it all? And of course, things like this didn't only happen once. Karen McDougal, the former Playmate, has yet to testify. The sex part of this trial is not over. It will get even more tawdry. That's who Trump is, and it seeps into what he says and does to those who dare to cross him, and those he uses and abuses.

Presidential elections are ultimately about character. That's what the experts always say at least. We're about to see whether that is really true.

========

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.