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?
No.
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.
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
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.
Nobody here is arguing that. And if you think so, you need to go back and reread the comments.
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
Nobody is debating that here
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.
Just relax. You’re all bent out of shape for nothing.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It’s not hard to understand. But it’s often used by trumps defenders to claim he isn’t a rapist.
And he is. Let there be NO DOUBT.