• style99@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s really telling about the state of Republican politics that this convicted rapist clearly committing criminal initimidation in a public forum is the frontrunner candidate for them in the upcoming election.

    • AmidFuror@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Trump has not be convicted of rape. That’s misleading terminology and conflates the lower standards of a civil trial with a criminal one.

      • ForestOrca@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

        For the Legally Literate: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf

        You are entitled to your opinion, however afaik you are not the judge in this case, and your opinion is not legally binding.

        Multiply impeached President #45, Donald J. Trump has been found guilty of the charge of rape, according to the legal opinion of District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

        • SlowNPC@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          From the article you linked:

          Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll

          From Cornell Law School’s web site:

          A party is liable when they are held legally responsible for something. Unlike in criminal cases, where a defendant could be found guilty, a defendant in a civil case risks only liability

          At no point in the article you linked did the Judge say that Trump was “found guilty” of anything. Trump has no crime on his criminal record.

          The judge in the article says that Trump was found to have raped Carroll, but acknowledged that there is “a legal distinction” between liability and guilt.

          I’m not trying to defend Trump here, or argue that he didn’t do what he was found to have done, just pointing out that there is a difference between “found guilty of rape” and what actually happened.

        • wagesj45@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s an important difference between civil liability and criminal guilt. They are very different things and you’re hurting your own argument.

          • ForestOrca@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m a terrible debater, and terrible arguer. Did you by any chance read the court document? Or the part in the WaPo article where Judge Kaplan says “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. Emphasis added.

            • wagesj45@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              He raped her. No doubt. But as far as the state is concerned, he didn’t because it has never been criminally adjudicated. The judge can say that he did, but that doesn’t make it a criminal conviction. He was civilly liable for the rape. Saying he’s convicted is factually inaccurate.

              Same thing with OJ Simpson. He was found civilly liable for those murders, but not criminally guilty. Pretty much everyone agrees that he murdered those people, but he’s not in prison right now because he wasn’t found guilty.

              In the same vain, Trump has not been found guilty of rape.

              All of this doesn’t mean that Trump didn’t rape that woman in actuality. It just means that he wasn’t convicted. And telling people he was convicted is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.

              • ForestOrca@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Ok, so here’s me being “disingenuous, at best”: “He raped her. No doubt.” If he did what he did to E. Jean Carroll in actuality, instead to your daughter, wife, mother, grandmother, how would you feel?

                • wagesj45@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I’d be upset, but my emotions on the matter don’t change the fact that he wasn’t criminally convicted. You can say he raped her, which he did. You can’t say (honestly) he was convicted because that means something entirely different. Are you being purposefully obtuse about my point, here?

  • sparseMatrix@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    This should be the one that gets him jailed. My guess is, it’ll be a significant fine; but any of us would be in jail already.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s an easy mistake to make, dudes in like 3 - 4 different trials, so it’s easy to lose track of which criming goes to what trial.