Donald J. Trump, the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee, was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case stemming from a payment that silenced a porn star.
Exactly. I’m not defending Trump in any way shape or form. But spreading misinformation, disregarding nuance, and ignoring factual details is dangerous and exactly what Republican politicians want. We need to be better than that as a nation.
They literally changed the legal code because of rape apologists since NY was one of the last states that didn’t consider vaginal penetration without consent rape unless a penis was involved.
Which, after and not before you get shaeshanked in the dufrane, you can feel free to distinguish your differences.
Because of dumps vaginally penetrating someone without their consent, regardless of method, that is also legally considered rape in New York
Dumps is a rapist by most legal definitions, his crime is one of rape today because of the sexual assault he committed and was held liable for, and the judge made it perfectly clear that dumps is a rapist in case anyone was confused.
Sure, it still isn’t a criminal conviction. Perhaps there was sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction and perhaps there isn’t. I don’t know.
One may conclude that in all likelihood he has committed such a crime. However, we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime, because he wasn’t (in the context of that civil matter).
Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable principle and politics is a trivial reason to dispense with it.
I didn’t say it was a criminal conviction, you’re confused.
“we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime” - do not claim that. This was a civil case, not a criminal case, so when trump was found liable for rape, he was not “convicted”, a legal term used to define guilt in a criminal case, not a civil case.
The likelihood of his guilt in raping Carroll in this civil case is called his “liability”.
As a consequence of the evidence presented, trump was found liable of sexual assault that is defined as rape in most states, and the judge presiding over that case clarified that Trump was found liable(legal term for “responsible”), for the rape of Jean Carroll, since the only thing that differs between this sexual assault and rape was New York’s antiquated legal wording that has since been updated.
I appreciate your backpedal, but no we do not agree.
You disagree with the judge and jury that dumps was found liable for rape.
I agree with the judge and jury that dumps was found liable for rape.
Parroting part of what I said, then pretending you said it first while you equivocate rape and bash straw men is much less agreeable than you appear to think it is.
If your greatest desire is pedantry, you should try it on someone who didn’t supply you with your information.
The TL;DR is that the jurisdiction in which the case happened has a very narrow definition of what constitutes rape; It requires penis-in-vagina insertion. Anything else is “only” sexual abuse.
Trump grabbed her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. All of it non-consensually. But where it happened, that isn’t enough to qualify as rape, because it didn’t involve PiV sex. The judge was clarifying that no, the case didn’t say he raped her, but that is only because of the incredibly narrow definition of the word “rape”. The judge was basically saying that in common parlance, (not the jurisdiction’s narrow legal definitions), most people would agree that what Trump did was in fact rape.
The judge’s statement was in response to Trump’s lawyers going “LoL wEll AkShuAllY hE nEveR RapED HeR”, like some sort of “it’s not actually pedophilia it’s ephebophilia, and that’s not as bad” argument. The judge’s statement is also in line with what psychiatric fields and the justice department define as rape, which includes penetration with any appendages or objects. But again, the local laws had a narrower definition.
Also worth noting that New York quickly changed their legal definitions following the lawsuit. Because the lawsuit was a giant beacon to the fact that they were one of the last places in the country to still strictly define rape as PiV penetration. So if it were to happen again today, the verdict would have said Trump raped her.
The point of a TL;DR is to explain the link to third parties, and maybe add some context. I’m assuming you’ve already read the article, and it wasn’t directed at you.
“Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E Jean Carroll.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
Whilst sexual assault is terrible we must remember that was determined only on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.
It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it’s an important part of our legal system.
Exactly. I’m not defending Trump in any way shape or form. But spreading misinformation, disregarding nuance, and ignoring factual details is dangerous and exactly what Republican politicians want. We need to be better than that as a nation.
Distinctions without a difference aside,
You know what seems like a distinction with a very important difference?
“Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E Jean Carroll.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
They literally changed the legal code because of rape apologists since NY was one of the last states that didn’t consider vaginal penetration without consent rape unless a penis was involved.
Which, after and not before you get shaeshanked in the dufrane, you can feel free to distinguish your differences.
Because of dumps vaginally penetrating someone without their consent, regardless of method, that is also legally considered rape in New York
Dumps is a rapist by most legal definitions, his crime is one of rape today because of the sexual assault he committed and was held liable for, and the judge made it perfectly clear that dumps is a rapist in case anyone was confused.
Sure, it still isn’t a criminal conviction. Perhaps there was sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction and perhaps there isn’t. I don’t know.
One may conclude that in all likelihood he has committed such a crime. However, we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime, because he wasn’t (in the context of that civil matter).
Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable principle and politics is a trivial reason to dispense with it.
I didn’t say it was a criminal conviction, you’re confused.
“we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime” - do not claim that. This was a civil case, not a criminal case, so when trump was found liable for rape, he was not “convicted”, a legal term used to define guilt in a criminal case, not a civil case.
The likelihood of his guilt in raping Carroll in this civil case is called his “liability”.
As a consequence of the evidence presented, trump was found liable of sexual assault that is defined as rape in most states, and the judge presiding over that case clarified that Trump was found liable(legal term for “responsible”), for the rape of Jean Carroll, since the only thing that differs between this sexual assault and rape was New York’s antiquated legal wording that has since been updated.
Yes, this is what I said. We all agree.
You are still confused.
I appreciate your backpedal, but no we do not agree.
I agree with the judge and jury that dumps was found liable for rape.
If your greatest desire is pedantry, you should try it on someone who didn’t supply you with your information.
Get a life man.
Don’t play make believe if you aren’t ready for the real world.
The TL;DR is that the jurisdiction in which the case happened has a very narrow definition of what constitutes rape; It requires penis-in-vagina insertion. Anything else is “only” sexual abuse.
Trump grabbed her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. All of it non-consensually. But where it happened, that isn’t enough to qualify as rape, because it didn’t involve PiV sex. The judge was clarifying that no, the case didn’t say he raped her, but that is only because of the incredibly narrow definition of the word “rape”. The judge was basically saying that in common parlance, (not the jurisdiction’s narrow legal definitions), most people would agree that what Trump did was in fact rape.
The judge’s statement was in response to Trump’s lawyers going “LoL wEll AkShuAllY hE nEveR RapED HeR”, like some sort of “it’s not actually pedophilia it’s ephebophilia, and that’s not as bad” argument. The judge’s statement is also in line with what psychiatric fields and the justice department define as rape, which includes penetration with any appendages or objects. But again, the local laws had a narrower definition.
Also worth noting that New York quickly changed their legal definitions following the lawsuit. Because the lawsuit was a giant beacon to the fact that they were one of the last places in the country to still strictly define rape as PiV penetration. So if it were to happen again today, the verdict would have said Trump raped her.
You might be intending to reply to someone else, I actually explained these exact points in a couple other comments.
Oh, are you just adding a general tldr for everyone who isn’t aware? Got it.
The point of a TL;DR is to explain the link to third parties, and maybe add some context. I’m assuming you’ve already read the article, and it wasn’t directed at you.
I think you might be intending to reply to somebody else, I just wrote that to you in the previous comment.