E. Jean Carroll is a rich woman.

So you're trying to argue that Trump would only assault "young" women?

 

Yeah, Willreadmore says "rape" and the post of mine you quoted was in response to his claims of rape.

 

And the judge at the trail said the only reason that the jury said it wasn't rape was because it was a finger and not his dick ... a shallow distinction, indeed.

 

Major distinction in the law. In Jeans words
" The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. "
Which is rape under NY Law. The jury didnt believe her.

 

Well, they convicted Trump of the crime as termed by NY law.

 

There was no conviction for any crime and the jury didnt believe her claim of rape as termed by NY Law.

 

??
Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse and defamation in May 2023. He was ordered to pay $5M.

In July 2023, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word.

That's why I refer to the verdict as being for the crime of rape.

In September 2023, Kaplan issued a partial summary judgment regarding the original 2019 lawsuit, finding Trump liable for defaming Carroll via his 2019 statements. In the January 2024 trial, Carroll's counsel cited comments by Trump asserting his vast wealth, leading to $83.3 million in additional damages.

 

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

However, the finding was made in a civil, not criminal, case so the punishment is strictly of a financial nature.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a member of The Following had to retreat to the last line of defense by stating Trump has not yet been convicted of a crime. Neither has Hillary, who has never been indicted by a grand jury, but that doesn't stop you folks from claiming she broke the law.

 

She said, he said. What a disgusting situation. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. So many lawyers, so little time.

 

Since Carroll is one of 26 women who have credibly accused the Orange Rapist of sexual assault I'm inclined to believe her, and them. Unless you were implying it was his middle finger that he stuck in her vajayjay.

 

I know. Youve heard the propaganda repeated so many times it has become your reality. Trump has neither been "convicted" of ANY crime or found to be "guilty" of any crime. He was found liable for sexual abuse. The jury rejected her claims of rape.

 

The jury rejected her rape claim based on the legal definition in NY requiring vaginal penetration by a man's penis.

 

NOT rape as described by Jean Carroll OR NY state law.

 

More importantly they rejected her claim of rape as alleged by Jean Carroll.

 

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

 

What is "commonly understood" is irrelevant in a legal proceeding that follow the law as written, NOT what is "commonly understood" in the public. Jean didnt accuse him of rape as "commonly understood" she accused him of rape as defined by NY law. Penetration of the vagina with a penis.

 

She will be a rich woman if she ever collects following all appeals.

That much is very much in doubt.

 

Trump is a master at delay tactics. Claiming he had too little time is preposterous. Remember, it's been years.

And, now I don't hear from any legal expert that has has an avenue to successfully appeal the ruling.

 

He has already been required to put up the $5M with the court, so when appeals are done, the winner gets what has finally determined. But, as of now he is out the $5M. His only hope is to get some of it back.

The same goes for the $83M. He has to put this amount in some sort of escrow (he has options).

It looks like he wants to take it out of his campaign fund.

When you donate to Trump, you are paying for his legal defense for rape and his disgusting attacks on his victim. Think about it.

 

The law as written in a civil case means the jury awards damages on the basis of the preponderance of evidence. They found Don sexually abused her. It's why Don owes Jean $88.3M.

The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 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.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that. So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll.5

Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.”6 And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf

 

That’s a great train of logic. If this could continue long enough it would get to the point where trump’s supporters would take his word over more than half of all Americans.

 

When it comes to choosing who is qualified to lead our nation I really don't see your point here.

 

No one claimed otherwise. I was disputing the claims that Trump was "guilty" and "convicted" of rape.

Well thats just nonsense. "Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the" meaning of "rape" as SHE alleges. His penis in her vagina. The criminal law definition of rape is just as irrelevant as the definition of rape in "common understanding"

 

Thats because we were discussing
E. Jean Carroll is a rich woman.
and her court case, not choosing who is qualified to lead our nation.
And my point relevant to the topic of discussion is to refute your claims that Trump is "guilty" and "convicted" of "rape" under any definition.

 

At 83 million lite I wonder how he feels about that.