- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A federal judge Monday dismissed former President Trump’s claim that E. Jean Carroll defamed him in May after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing the writer.
The day after the verdict, Carroll appeared on CNN and indicated Trump had raped her. The jury had not found Trump liable for rape under New York’s definition, but instead found him liable for sexual abuse.
Trump then claimed Carroll’s insistence on CNN amounted to defamation, filing a counterclaim in Carroll’s other lawsuit that has not yet gone to trial.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday dismissed Trump’s argument, ruling Carroll’s statement on the cable network was substantially true and that “[t]here would have been no different effect on the mind of an average listener.”
“The difference between Ms. Carroll’s allegedly defamatory statements — that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as defined in the New York Penal Law — and the ‘truth’ — that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll — is minimal. Both are felonious sex crimes,” Kaplan ruled.
Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, separately rejected Trump’s defense that he has “absolute presidential immunity” in the case.
Just a reminder that Trump is a convicted rapist, by definition of the word rape. It’s legally defined as sexual assault in NY.
Trump is a convicted rapist.
Not convicted, because it wasn’t a criminal trial. But the trial did determine it was a kind of sexual assault that, while not legally fitting the term rape in New York State, can colloquially be considered such. Which is why Carroll has every right to say he raped her.
How does the state of NY define it? But that seems like very clear cut rape to me.
Without going into the sordid details, Carroll couldn’t prove whether Trump used his penis or his finger (although she claims both), and it has to be a penis in New York Law for it to be rape. So it went to the lesser verdict of ‘sexual abuse.’ It’s really a technical thing. Most people would consider him using his finger to be rape too, I would wager.
I’d hope so, because it is.
NY defines rape as penetration with a penis. Since he penetrated her with his fingers, it could only be considered sexual assault by NY’s definition. Worth noting that she claimed he penetrated her with both, but could only prove in court that he penetrated her with his fingers.
This judge basically ruled that while he wasn’t found guilty of raping her based on NY’s narrow definition, the colloquial use of the word rape is functionally what he did to her.
How on earth did she prove one but not the other?
Like or hate trump, that civil case was absurd. Claiming you were sexually assaulted yet not even knowing what year you were assaulted? Come on lol.
No he isn’t lol. You’re not a convicted rapist unless you get convicted for rape/sexual assault. There were no criminal charges, no conviction. She won a dubious civil suit where she doesn’t even know what year she was assaulted.
Why would you defend a rapist? Trump is a rapist, as proven in court. Forcibly fingering someone is rape, by definition.
Trump is a rapist piece of shit. This was proven in court. It was been affirmed he is a rapist when his defamation case was tossed, because the statements that he raped Carroll are factual, and cannot be considered defamatory, because he is, in fact, a rapist.
Why would you take anything I said as “defending” him? Read it again.
You’re not a convicted rapist when you haven’t been convicted. There is no conviction in a civil suit. He was not criminally charged.
Civil suits are not the same as criminal ones. The burden of proof is significantly higher in a criminal case, which is likely why she went the civil route - because she knew that she would never win a criminal suit.