All the news headlines and verdict said sexual abuse, which was kind of vague, but I just found out today that the judge clarified that this was a matter of legal definition and by the verdict of the trial and the case, trump has been found guilty of penetrative rape.
Is that the rapist Donald John Trump, the raping rapist who rapes? As in the Donald Trump who was found guilty of rape because he is the rapist Donald Trump who rapes?
That’s the one!
Found guilty
Technically not, and this is an important distinction because the level of evidence required for a civil case is less than that of a criminal case.
He has been found civilly liable for something legally distinct from rape
To clarify, are we talking about the raping rapist Donald Trump, who was found civilly liable for being a raping racist who rapes?..THAT Donald J trump?
nope, it’s Donald “civally liable for acts equivalent to, but legally distinct from, rape” John “grab 'em by the pussy” Trump
Didn’t she say that she wasn’t sure if it was his penis or his fingers and that’s why in NY they couldn’t call it rape.
Which is ridiculous because it’s rape whichever he used.
Forceable sexual assault? Yes.
Rape? No.
Fondling? Yes.
This using Clery Act standards which colleges use. PDF Warning.
Otherwise it varies heavily state by state.
“Forcible sexual assault” is rape. As the judge agreed.
No it’s not and there should be distinctions.
Why exactly should there be a distinction between forcing yourself on a woman and penetrating her with your finger and forcing yourself on a woman and penetrating her with your penis? Is a penis somehow worse than a finger when it comes to forcibly penetrating a woman?
deleted by creator
So rape is based on the possibility of pregnancy? Should the rape of a woman post-menopause be considered as a lesser crime than the rape of a woman who has the capability of getting pregnant? What if it’s during her period?
deleted by creator
Absolutely, except by law in New York.
shut the fuck up. rape is rape.
How much does it matter to the victim whether the assaulter’s penis or fingers were forced inside of them if they couldn’t identify which it was? I’m sure she would have preferred neither. You’re just arguing semantics right?
i don’t remember. it’s gross and awful.
Yes it’s like you said. Awful through and through
Few more explanatory quotes - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll
Article says the jury found trump liable for digital(fingers) penetration, but not for irrefutable non-consensual penetration using his penis, which is the only way to legally be found liable for “rape” in NY.
I have not watched or read a transcript of the trial yet, this is a true TIL.
By any other name, would he still be a creep.
Yes, the answer is yes.
deleted by creator
Not a convict because it was a civil case rather than criminal, trump is still a rapist according to a judge and jury.
I only bring this up so that if you ever get in a debate or someone says he’s not a rapist, they can’t falsely dismiss that trumpi is a rapist on a technicality within your statement.
Trump is a rapist.
What the actual fuck
Exactly, I totally agree
That’s what happens when men write laws that are used to try other men for crimes against women
I cannot imagine the ordeal for the victim when a bunch of folks in suits discusses if someone forced his dick inside of you or “just” his fingers…
Pretty horrifying.
At least trump was found liable, though. I was thinking of a victim exposing themselves in the courtroom and the countless times a jury finds for the rich douchebag with more lawyers.
She didn’t have her contacts in; it could have been his penis or his pinky finger based on size.
If Lemmy had a bar exam, you would have just failed it with this post.
oh. please explain.
If lemmy was a needle, you’d be able to make a point.
Guess Lemmy for him is a golf game as he’s clearly ahead in the sub par territory.
Sooo… he’s a rapist - as if we needed any confirmation of that.
The party line was that he technically wasn’t accused of rape, and while I would have thought he was a rapist anyway, without the judge explicitly and publicly stating that Trump is a rapist， I would have never known from reading the articles about the trial.
“Found guilty” is inaccurate, since he was not charged with it as a crime. Rather, it was a finding of fact in a civil case. The standards of evidence are different, and a criminal prosecution would still have to prove the charge to a higher standard. But for purposes of civil liability, yeah, he did it.
The very fact that she said she could not tell if he used a finger or his penis kinda proves shes not lying… if she was set out to make money off him by lying Im pretty sure part of that lie would be “yeah his penus was def inside me bro”
I thought about that, but since guilty isn’t only a legal term and commonly implies responsibility for wrongdoing in general and the judge is clarifying trump is responsible for raping carroll regardless of the legal term used, naming his guilt is appropriate and perfectly accurate.
He is guilty in the ordinary sense. But “found guilty” is technical vocabulary for criminal courts.
It is a common phrase within and without jurisprudence.
People say I’m guilty, he’s guilty etc but it’s unlikely to hear “they were found guilty” outside of jurisprudence, and to say that when referring to a judicial trial and then say you meant a lay term when the professional term exists is a bit lax.
I wouldn’t say “WiFi” in place of “internet” while referring to an IT problem for example.
Less common outside of jurisprudence, sure. The term is purposefully in my personal TIL body text rather than the title where I kept things succinct and formal. Using a different term doesn’t change his guilt of rape, or that a jury legally found him liable for rape and a judge definitively found him guilty of rape.
It was found that he raped someone, he is guilty of rape, but a judge did not find him guilty of rape. Why do you insist so much on muddling the definitions of these things? It’s not good for democracy or the judicial process to use terms randomly and without definition.
Let’s help you along.
The judge cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
Using the definition of the word rape, the judge declared trump guilty of rape.
Having used definitions, this “judge definitively found him guilty of rape”.
You may personally be more familiar with other uses of the words “definitively”, “judge”, “guilty”, “found” or “rape”, but their usage here is in no way inaccurate or untrue.
Why is he not in jail then? Crimes like these shouldn’t be possible to change with a fine or whatever.
I haven’t been following this tbh since I’m not American but I did read another comment that said something about the statute of limitations so maybe criminal charges can’t be brought due to that weird part of the law where rape gets an expiry date.
Correct, the state passed a law allowing those cases where statue of limitations have been passed for criminal trails to still sue their attacker in civil court.
It’s been suggested this was passed specifically to target Trump, but a good number of sexual assaults never go reported and I believe a few hundred cases have come from this law.
It has since expired, it was only valid for one year.
Because, again, he wasn’t convicted in criminal court. And again, there is a different burden of proof in civil cases (preponderance of evidence vs. “Beyond a reasonable doubt.”). There are many reasons why a case may be brought in civil court and not criminal.
One famous example is OJ Simpson. Ruled not guilty of murder in criminal court, but lost in civil court and had to pay Ron Goldman’s family a fuck ton of money, as well as giving up any profits he may have made, or ever will make, based on the murders (that ridiculous book, etc).
Not enough evidence to convince a jury in a criminal trial, but more than enough for civil.
Do you guys use ‘Preponderance of Evidence’ as the standard of proof for civil cases in the US? In Australia we use ‘On the Balance of Probabilities’. I wonder if there’s a technical difference there.
(Tiny pedantic note but the Burden of Proof is about who has to produce the evidence, not the level of evidence required to make a finding - that’s the Standard of Proof)
Yes we go by preponderance of evidence.
Essentially it’s ‘whoever you Believe more’ in civil cases, which is significantly lower than 'beyond a reasonable doubt ’ we use for criminal trials.
There is also the notion that is not all or nothing depending on the proof for and against a defendant. You can ask for X amount, but only get X-Y because the proof against the defendant weren’t enough to grant all the X amount.
In criminal court, you are either guilty or not and then, if you are guilty, you can have factors that reduces or lengthen the sentence.
See also Martin Luther King Jr’s family bringing a preponderance of evidence to a civil trial alleging the FBI and CIA were behind the assassination and winning $100 and a footnote in history books.
knowledgefight.com - huge resource
Thank you! You are now a Policy Wonk
Hey thanks! Jones was right about those gay frogs, though…
Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! tRump for prison 2023!
And beyond
Good ole Commander and Creep
