nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

What’s he supposed to do? Dress up as batman and go punch bad guys?

Well, I mean the Pope could dress up as batman if he really wanted to, but what the Pope does in his private time is his own business. But, didn’t the whole crucifixion thing that the whole religion is based on come about because of a punishment for a crime? You know that pontius pilate thing?

  • homes@piefed.worldEnglish
    35·
    10 hours ago

    While I hate to ever be in a position to defend the guy, Trump was technically never convicted of rape. He was adjudicated as having committed sexual assault in a civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll in New York, but he was never charged with, nor convicted of rape, which is a criminal charge.

    This mostly has to do with the legal difference between rape and sexual assault in the state of New York.

    But he was convicted of 34 other felonies, which are criminal charges.

    edit: to be clear, Obviously Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. I’m just discussing the legal terminology as it pertains to NY State

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      82·
      11 hours ago

      No.

      In an opinion issued on Wednesday, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial, wrote that the trial evidence demonstrated Trump “raped” Carroll in the plain sense of the word.

      “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan wrote. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

      https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll-sexual-abuse-jury-judge-2023-7

      Edit: it is correct to say he wasn’t convicted of rape, specifically, in that case, (partly because it was not a criminal trial, it was a civil trial) it is totally in keeping with the court’s findings to call him a rapist. The difference is a thin hope against the worst that he is that many MAGAts cling to.

      • homes@piefed.worldEnglish
        35·
        10 hours ago

        No. I was correct to say that he was not convicted of rape, which you admit.

        It was the judges personal opinion, not the “courts finding”, and what was being discussed, there is what I posted in my comment, the differentiation in New York State law between rape and sexual assault. clearly, the judge was frustrated in the difference between what you state as “the plain sense of the word” and the legal distinction in the state of New York.

        So, you admit, I was correct, but you still wanna make an argument anyway. That doesn’t make you correct.

        While many may call that rape, and I certainly do, the state of New York does not, which is why he was not convicted of rape. That’s not an argument to have with me, that’s an argument to have with New York State legislators.

        Regardless of your opinion, this is an accurate representation of the fact, whether you like it or not

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          53·
          10 hours ago

          He raped her. It’s real simple.

          If you want to polysyllabically dance about The Law, go nuts. What is your point when it is a given?

          But he’s a rapist, and that’s a fact. A fact determined by a judge and jury in a court of law. End of story.

          • homes@piefed.worldEnglish
            32·
            10 hours ago

            He raped her. It’s real simple.

            Nobody here is arguing that. And if you think so, you need to go back and reread the comments.

            If you want to polysyllabically dance about The Law, go nuts. What is your point when it is a given?

            I made myself very, very clear, but a big words frighten you, I’ll make nice and simple:

            Trump was never convicted of rape (a crime). He was adjudicated of having committed sexual assault and a civil case (a civil offense). legally, in the state of New York, they are not the same thing. One carries a prison sentence. The other carries a financial judgment. That’s why E Jean Carroll got $5 million from him.

            The whole reason she sued him in the first place is because she couldn’t get him charged with the crime. And the burden of proof in a civil case as much lower than in a criminal case.

            She won

            But he’s a rapist, and that’s a fact.

            Nobody is debating that here

            A fact determined by a judge and jury in a court of law.

            Incorrect. A jury determined that he had committed sexual assault, and that E Jean Carroll deserved $5 million in a civil case in the state of New York.

            And that’s a matter of public record don’t believe me? Read the court case. Read the judges final ruling.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              31·
              10 hours ago

              I made myself very, very clear, but a big words frighten you, I’ll make nice and simple:

              Just relax. You’re all bent out of shape for nothing.

              But he’s a rapist, and that’s a fact.

              Nobody is debating that here

              A fact determined by a judge and jury in a court of law.

              Incorrect. A jury determined that he had committed sexual assault, and that E Jean Carroll deserved $5 million in a civil case in the state of New York.

              And then again for 85 more million, yeah. So you’re saying that due to the civil nature of the case, and the expired statute of limitations on the criminal charges, when the judge and jury determined that his attacking and forcibly penetrating her vagina with his penis was - what - just “sexual assault”? (It was.)

              And if I go read the court case with the letters r-a-p-e appear in the findings of fact? No? Well then he can’t have raped her can he? Except that he can, and did, and - here’s the part I think we disagree on - it was proven. In court.

              So sure, it’s “just” sexual assault on the printed page but who’s fooling who? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is Allah God? Is a brontasaurus an apatasaurus?

              If somebody says he wasn’t found guilty of rape, they’d better damned well understand his “sexual assault” for which he was liable was rape.

              • homes@piefed.worldEnglish
                2·
                10 hours ago

                So you’re saying that…

                no. you said that. all of that.

                all I did was explain, repeatedly, that, in New York State, there is a legal distinction between a crime and a civil offense, and that there is also a legal distinction between rape and sexual assault. further, Donald Trump was never convicted of the crime of rape in the state of New York (nor anywhere to my knowledge). nowhere here did I nor anyone argue whether he actually did rape her.

                just relax. You’re all bent out of shape for nothing.

                • Optional@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  10 hours ago

                  So who found him liable for sexual assault? Was it the courtroom sketch artist?

                  And what led them to that conclusion, I wonder. Was it the rape?

                  • homes@piefed.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    9 hours ago

                    I’m not so sure what about this you find so difficult to understand here. I really don’t.

                    I’ve explained it several times in many different ways, from complex to simple.

                    • trump committed what is commonly defined as a rape

                    • in a civil court, he was found liable for having committed what, in NY State, is legally defined as sexual assault

                    • he paid e jean carroll a massive, multi-million-dollar judgement

                    • he was not “convicted of rape”

                    why is that so hard to understand?

    • Monument@piefed.worldEnglish
      12·
      10 hours ago

      Then don’t put yourself in a position to defend him. Silence is free.

      People already know that the justice system is skewed toward the wealthy.
      We know that if someone has enough money, they can rape others, then offer them a payoff and an NDA in exchange for silence. We know that people who cannot afford intensive legal representation tend to take NDAs, because often a legal accusation is dragged out to the point where it is financially ruinous. It’s common practice amongst some people accused of various misdeeds to counter-sue on trumped-up claims of libel (or whatever) that are designed to force the accuser into a dire financial situation, to get them to accept an NDA. (Along with all the other reasons someone chooses not to go after a powerful assailant - threats of legal harassment, threats of violence, having been killed and dropped into Lake Michigan or the Caribbean, having your tips ignored by law enforcement, being told by law enforcement that you deserved it, etc.)

      This is a circumstance where the devil does not need advocates. They have paid advocates who are entirely too good at their job, plus social constructs and a legal system that helps to enforce their hegemony.