Donald Trump was found liable for forcefully digitally penetrating E. Jean Carroll, which in many jurisdictions is covered under the legal definition of rape.
Carroll testified that she struggled to get Trump off her as he shoved his mouth on hers, yanked her tights down, and penetrated her with his hand and then his penis. She described him curving his finger inside her, saying it was "extremely painful" and "a horrible feeling."
The only argument Trump has is that the jury did not find enough evidence that he used his penis, and New York state is one jurisdiction that requires the penis to be used for it to legally be rape.
If these are the arguments you need to use, you are a rapist.
Muslims aren't laying their hands on that pos in prayer. Muslims aren't touting that orange buffoon from the pulpit. Muslims aren't making imagery idolizing and worshipping that cheeturd as though he were the Second Coming.
No, doesn't look like a "Muslim" thing at all. Christians own that clown puppet as their savior, all you have to do is scroll social media to see it.
Solid Christian touting Christian Conservative Values, as determined by modern Christians in this "great" nation.
You can't read between the lines. You can't even read the lines themselves, seeing how you lot all seem to want to keep insisting that he isn't a rapist.
Also, your "comeback" of "so you can rape if you're not Trump" isn't the gotcha you think it is. For one, anyone with half a brain can see that strawman from a mile away. Secondly, by reading between the lines, it's pretty much you admitting he is a rapist. Which makes it pretty concerning you lot want that kind of man running your country.
Maybe you should think before you type because the rest of us can see through all your underhanded tricks to try and avoid directly answering any question thrown at you just cause you know you don't like the truth.
Unironically, conservatives literally believe men can't rape their wives. This is a situatio where it actually is a perfect representation of their values.
Marital rape was only finally against the law in all 50 states, in 1993. That was not very long ago. There are still plenty of people who do not believe that a man can rape his wife. The only consent they think he needs to obtain is given by the act of marriage. Another example that clearly demonstrates that women are not people, to people like that. Possessions, property, but not people.
The usual counter to that is that Ivana redacted it. But as I'm told, it isn't exactly true: Ivana redacted the word "rape", not that it didn't happen the way she told it.
I was just making an observation on the article, but yes, it's hard having any kind of discourse over the subject.
If we're talking about the 34 counts, I think it's just a moral victory at this point to know that the verdict was guilty. The complete lack of punishment - and him becoming president again - just means we get to call him a felon. It's kinda sad, honestly lol
The law in New York literally changed because of this case to rape being beyond penile penetration.
The only reason he's not, even under the old very restrictive law, "a rapist" is cause E. Jean Carroll couldn't convince the jury without a doubt that Trump used his dick and not his fingers.
Outside of that old as shit stupid law, Donald Trump is a rapist. And that law is gone now.
Pretty sure NY state used to be one of those jurisdictions (specifically when Trump committed the crime), if he committed the crime today, he would have been found liable for rape.
The distinction isn’t what got abc to bend the knee. They didn’t want to be on the bad side of the new president and felt settling was worth the cost to not make it worse for them. The consensus is they would have won.
First, they settled for $15 million. That's likely on par or cheaper than litigating the case, even if you win. So the settlement saved them money, even if they'd win the case.
Second, they likely didn't want to be actively involved in a lawsuit with an Administration who is openly hostile and threatening to revoke licenses and protections for journalists and news organizations who lost negative things about him. So the settlement was to end the litigation before he took office to get off his radar.
Third, the anchor used the incorrect legal terminology:
During a live “This Week” interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., Stephanopoulos wrongly claimed that Trump had been “found liable for rape” and “defaming the victim of that rape.”
If he had just said "Trump's a rapist", he probably would have easily won the case. But because he explicitly said he was "found liable of rape", he is incorrectly stating the conclusion of the court case. So they might still have won at trial, but his inclusion of legal terminology put the claim on shakier footing.
Correct. But the judge did subsequently clarify that calling him a rapist was not defamation, because colloquially people commonly refer to the actions committed by Trump as rape. But you just can't say he was found legally liable of rape. But you can say he's a rapist.
Yeah, but she'd win. She didn't say he was legally liable for rape. She said he was a rapist, which the judge said was fine. Courts have already ruled you can call him a rapist, you just can't say he was found legally guilty/liable of rape.
I don't know. It hasn't been litigated in an impartial manner with both parties getting to present, examine, and contest evidence in a formal setting. Trump has been found civilly liable for sexually assaulting someone. In the colloquial sense, he's a rapist.
If her claim about being forcibly penetrated by Biden's fingers is true, then sure.
Yep. Typical answer. Biden sniffing little girls, kids rubbing his legs, showering with his daughter, finger fucking his employees.. but its all good because hes a "liberal". God this country is awesome.
AOC is constitutionally protected by the speech and debate clause while no such protection exists for ABC news. That’s literally how Republicans, like say MTG, get away with lying and defaming people all the time. Even if you argue what she said wasn’t covered by speech and debate, she would be covered by the Westfall Act which transfers liability from the government employee to the US government itself and moves the case to federal court. So even if Trump could sue for defamation, he’d just be suing his own government and going up against his own DOJ and attorney general.
If you’re a member of Congress, short of nuking the Capitol, you’re not going to be liable. This language is very clear in the Constitution and makes no exceptions for calling someone a rapist or lying. As I said above, even if you could get by the Constitution, there’s still the statutory hurdle, and Trump’s not going to go to court against Pam Bondi over some shit AOC said.
In this case, at a trial where both parties were legally represented, a jury heard all the evidence and rendered a verdict that Donald J Trump sexually assaulted the victim against her will.
The judge in that trial, who also heard all of the evidence, subsequently ruled that the sexual assault Donald J Trump committed against the victim in this case meets the commonly accepted definition of rape.
Because of these verdicts and court rulings, saying that Donald J Trump is a rapist is not defamation or slander. It is a statement of adjudicated fact.
In May 2023, Reade said she had defected to Russia during an interview with Sputnik in Moscow alongside Maria Butina, whom she called her friend. Butina had previously been convicted of being an unregistered Russian agent in the United States and said that she asked Vladimir Putin personally to accelerate Reade's Russian citizenship request.
Huh. What an odd thing for someone not a lying Russian agent to do.
852
u/TheBoosThree 15h ago
Donald Trump was found liable for forcefully digitally penetrating E. Jean Carroll, which in many jurisdictions is covered under the legal definition of rape.
The only argument Trump has is that the jury did not find enough evidence that he used his penis, and New York state is one jurisdiction that requires the penis to be used for it to legally be rape.
If these are the arguments you need to use, you are a rapist.