fredfredunderscorefred said:
Mondemonium said:
fredfredunderscorefred said:
Mondemonium said:
Reality Check said:
Mondemonium said:
Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"
Wild times we live in. Someone who has zero witnesses to her ever having mentioned being raped by Donald Trump suddenly comes forward 30 years later -- with zero details (other than what was on "Law & Order") and persuades 12 Trump-hating jurors that she wasn't raped but was digitally penetrated and that she deserves $83.5 million because of it. Did I mention Trump not being allowed to testify that he has no idea who this woman is?
The way you fight that is through an appeal. Trump can say he maintains his innocence and disagrees with the verdict, but trying to sue someone for calling him a rapist is dumb.
A civil jury found that he digitally penetrated her against her will, which falls under the broader definition of "rape." So calling him a rapist is a true statement unless that is reversed. As the other poster pointed out, it's fine to call OJ Simpson a murderer even though he was criminally acquitted. A civil jury found he did it.
I can't find the verdict form from the civil trial, but I suspect when the jury is asked yes or no to murder (probably worded as causing the death), they answered "yes" as opposed to "no." Which would be different than answering "no" when asked if Carroll proved he raped her. Just a little different at least.
No, you are exactly right. The jury marked "no" under the question of rape for Trump, but given the broader definitions of the word rape and with Trump being a public figure, the case is dumb.
All Snuffleupagus has to say is he wasn't using the narrow NY statutory definition of rape but the broader definition of rape that is in dictionaries and in the AG definition, etc...
Except he was specifically saying "the jury" found him "liable for rape". The jury literally, not figuratively, found that she did not prove he raped her. They specifically found the opposite of what he is claiming.
Yeah, I get what you are saying. What he said was factually "imprecise." I don't think that will carry the day in a lawsuit.
A civil jury found him not liable for [NY Statutory definition of] rape but liable for [broader, more modern and widely accepted definition of] rape. It's a misleading statement but is it defamatory?
Throw in the public figure aspect and it's dead in the water.
Is this a smart move, politically? It gets E Jean Carroll's accusations back out in the public discourse. Trump is a master of manipulating media focus so I think they have calculated this gives him some advantage.