If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify
I've explained repeatedly why this is a pedantic quibble. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep returning to arguments that have already been addressed as soon as we're on a new subject.
which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.
That's possible, sure. It doesn't seem very likely to me, as even if we assume that the prosecution is politically motivated, launching a massive, high-profile case and indicting a former president with a weak hand would be a very strange move. They could just as easily have not indicted Trump.
This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.
None of these details are "contradictions," they're just things that you're arbitrarily declaring to be abnormal and presumably therefore indications of dishonesty. Who says that rape victims can't or don't behave like this?
Oddly, we saw from the jury conviction questionnaire that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The jury found Trump liable for both the incident and the defamation and awarded Carroll millions for both. How was their ruling "heavily focused" one way or the other?
There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred.
No, it couldn't. This is the silliest argument you've made yet. Trump was being sued for a specific alleged incident, not for calling Carroll ugly. Courts are very clear with juries about what exactly it is that they're sitting in judgment of, and if they weren't in this case, Trump's lawyers would have gotten a mistrial in a heartbeat.
The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.
The document very clearly says to skip the question about forcible touching if they answered yes to sexual abuse, because it's redundant. These are meant as degrees of severity for what Trump allegedly could have done, with forcible touching being the least severe and rape being the most. Selecting a more severe option doesn't automatically exonerate him of the elements involved in the less severe options. Obviously you can't sexually abuse someone without forcibly touching them.