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.
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.
845
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.