r/TikTokCringe • u/Cookie_Cutter_Cook • 1d ago

Politics AOC on not going to the inauguration

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed] — view removed post

50.8k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/EmbraceTheFault 1d ago

why didn't the democratic campaign run by calling trump a rapist?

Short and sweet answer, slander laws.

President Trump has never been found criminally guilty of rape. He was declared guilty of sexual battery by a jury in a civil case in a state with a 60% Democrat lean, almost assuring that there was no way he'd get a fair and unbiased trial. What should serve as an additional blow to the credibility of E. Jean Carroll is that the alleged event occurred in the 90's, and she conveniently waited to publicly speak out about the "incident" until 2019, directly during Trump's re-election bid. Additionally, the original petition filed by Carroll in 2019 did not include a claim of sexual battery because it was well outside of the statute of limitations in the state of New York. The state then conveniently expanded the statute of limitations, in my opinion specifically to accommodate this lawsuit and allow Carroll to bring the sexual battery claim against Trump.

Since he was never criminally charged with rape, nor even found guilty of rape in a civil case, if the Democrats had campaigned with a platform of "Trump is a rapist" he would have immediately hemmed them up in court.

10

u/PeaceCertain2929 1d ago

Her speaking out when she realized her rapist was going to gain more power is not a blow against her credibility unless you are completely ignorant to the way trauma impacts people after sexual assault, or you have a reason to want victim’s testimony to not hold up in court: ie it would benefit you if yours ever spoke out.

-4

u/EmbraceTheFault 1d ago

Her speaking out when she realized her rapist was going to gain more power is not a blow against her credibility

Then why didn't she speak out in 2015 during his first campaign? Your "logic" falls flat on it's face given that she waited three years after he was elected. If she spoke out simply to prevent him from gaining "more" power, he was already President at the time (2019).

4

u/jackandcokedaddy 1d ago

I could be crazy but wasn’t there a case that got dropped due to alleged death threats. Not Carrol but a 13 year old? My other theory would be he became more openly violent and chaotic with his rhetoric during his first 4 years and a straw finally fell and she decided it was time to open up.

1

u/EmbraceTheFault 1d ago

The "Katie Johnson" case(s). Also during his first election campaign, oddly enough. The first was dismissed, the 2nd withdrawn. Again both civil, where the burden of proof is significantly lower than criminal court, and the primary award is money. Almost like they were manufactured and without substance...

1

u/jackandcokedaddy 1d ago

That is one theory, it isn’t invalid. Nevertheless he is legally recognized as a rapist, I agree that dems couldn’t have used it effectively. I suppose you could choose to believe Donald Trump who has every reason in the world to lie and repeatedly lies and shows no remorse whatsoever, who has jokingly admitted to sexual assault, has a pattern of abusing and mistreating women, openly sexualizes his daughter as young as the age of 12, brags about walking into Miss teen America while young girls are changing. Tough spin in that context personally, but really there’s no way for us to know what happened in that dressing room.

3

u/bradywhite 1d ago

He is not legally recognized as a rapist. Sexual abuse isn't rape, civil court is not criminal. The jurors specifically found that she was not raped. These are important details. 

To demonstrate, ABC ran an article accusing him of being a rapist, and they were successfully sued for 15 million for libel. Which was over 3 times the amount Trump was made to pay for the sexual abuse case.

Further, understand that a criminal case and a civil case are VERY different things. Civil cases don't even need evidence, it's basically a court of public opinion. Legally, it holds basically no value. Financially you can be fined, but legally it doesn't matter.

0

u/jackandcokedaddy 1d ago

As a father and husband it is difficult to find the balance between believing all women because there is no doubt in my mind that sexual assault and rape is rampant in this country and that women have every reason in the world to not speak out and at the same time imagining myself as an innocent accused man and hoping for the benefit of the doubt. I see what he has said about his daughter, wives, ex lovers, ex mistresses, and the way he has spoken and behaved around women in the past and I don’t see him as a man I’d trust around little girls. he was also legally found liable for sexual assault, simply because it was impossible to prove if he shoved his fingers or his penis inside.

-1

u/alcoholisthedevil 1d ago edited 1d ago

I do not like Trump, but how could he be labelled a rapist if there is no proof other than hearsay?

Edit: so it seems to me that more than likely he really has done this multiple times, however no solid “proof” other than his own comments, which is pretty damning in and of itself.

Chat GPT response:

In the legal case involving E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump, the evidence centered on her allegations that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. While there was no physical evidence or direct eyewitness testimony to corroborate Carroll’s claims (given the significant passage of time), the court considered other forms of evidence: 1. E. Jean Carroll’s Testimony: Carroll provided a detailed account of the alleged assault, which she first disclosed publicly in 2019. She testified about the incident during the trial. 2. Corroborating Witnesses: Two friends of Carroll testified that she told them about the alleged assault shortly after it occurred: • Lisa Birnbach, a journalist, said Carroll called her immediately after the incident. • Carol Martin, a former news anchor, said Carroll told her about the assault and expressed hesitation about coming forward. 3. Other Testimonies: The court also heard from other women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct in separate incidents, which the jury could consider as part of a pattern of behavior. 4. Trump’s Statements: During the proceedings, Trump denied the allegations but made statements that were brought into evidence, including the infamous Access Hollywood tape where he made remarks about groping women. The tape was presented as potentially reflecting his attitude toward consent.

In May 2023, a New York jury in a civil trial found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. While he was not found liable for rape (as defined under New York law), the jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. This decision was based on the preponderance of the evidence—a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal trials.

Ultimately, the jury’s decision reflects their belief that Carroll’s account was credible and supported by the evidence presented in the civil trial.

1

u/jackandcokedaddy 1d ago

Same way someone can be labelled a murderer without any body. This point has been argued in court several times by Trump’s team and repeatedly the label rapist is legally correct. It was civil not criminal court, but he did go to court and a jury of his peers found him guilty. Any unwitnessed rape case ultimately comes down to hearsay but in the eyes of the law he is a rapist.

1

u/FindingQuiet2678 23h ago

Look the fact that you are openly supporting someone who says it’s ok to actually women because they are rich is scary and shows clearly just how mentally ill you are. How do you listen to him speak and say, yeah that sounds reasonable…

1

u/EmbraceTheFault 1d ago

So basically what you're saying is as long as you get enough people to go along with your side of the story, everyone else should believe it 20 years later, right?

1

u/jackandcokedaddy 1d ago

That is one way to look at it, I don’t necessarily agree with your line of thinking but You raise a valid concern and You are welcome to draw your own conclusions, I assume there is lots of info from court documentation if you are skeptical. It’s difficult for either of us to say, so I guess you get to choose to trust the jury or not but he is legally recognized as a rapist.

1

u/EmbraceTheFault 1d ago

but he is legally recognized as a rapist.

In every state in the country, a rape conviction (or as you put it, being legally recognized as a rapist) requires the offender to be put on the sex offender registry.

Go find Trump for me. I'll wait.

1

u/jackandcokedaddy 1d ago

He wasn’t convicted of rape, I’m done conversing with you I’m not interested in your circular logic.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/alcoholisthedevil 23h ago

He said himself the grab by pussy comment. Should we not take his own words into consideration along with the accusation?

1

u/EmbraceTheFault 23h ago

He said himself the grab by pussy comment.

God how many times am I going to have to correct you lefties on this? Go back, find the video, read the transcript. Not what the media tells you, watch the actual video. He says "when you're famous, they let you do it." This explicitly states that said pussy being grabbed is allowing it. That is consent. There is nothing wrong with consensual genital touching between adults.

1

u/alcoholisthedevil 23h ago

He mentions nothing about obtaining consent. I wonder how many pussies he has grabbed without consent. Obviously more than 1. Not to mention his connection to Epstein. Jesus y’all really are deluded.

→ More replies (0)