this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
424 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2584 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal judge Monday dismissed former President Trump’s claim that E. Jean Carroll defamed him in May after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing the writer.

The day after the verdict, Carroll appeared on CNN and indicated Trump had raped her. The jury had not found Trump liable for rape under New York’s definition, but instead found him liable for sexual abuse.

Trump then claimed Carroll’s insistence on CNN amounted to defamation, filing a counterclaim in Carroll’s other lawsuit that has not yet gone to trial.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday dismissed Trump’s argument, ruling Carroll’s statement on the cable network was substantially true and that “[t]here would have been no different effect on the mind of an average listener.”

“The difference between Ms. Carroll’s allegedly defamatory statements — that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as defined in the New York Penal Law — and the ‘truth’ — that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll — is minimal. Both are felonious sex crimes,” Kaplan ruled.

Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, separately rejected Trump’s defense that he has “absolute presidential immunity” in the case.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DrZoidberg 104 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just a reminder that Trump is a convicted rapist, by definition of the word rape. It's legally defined as sexual assault in NY.

Trump is a convicted rapist.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not convicted, because it wasn't a criminal trial. But the trial did determine it was a kind of sexual assault that, while not legally fitting the term rape in New York State, can colloquially be considered such. Which is why Carroll has every right to say he raped her.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How does the state of NY define it? But that seems like very clear cut rape to me.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Without going into the sordid details, Carroll couldn't prove whether Trump used his penis or his finger (although she claims both), and it has to be a penis in New York Law for it to be rape. So it went to the lesser verdict of 'sexual abuse.' It's really a technical thing. Most people would consider him using his finger to be rape too, I would wager.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

NY defines rape as penetration with a penis. Since he penetrated her with his fingers, it could only be considered sexual assault by NY’s definition. Worth noting that she claimed he penetrated her with both, but could only prove in court that he penetrated her with his fingers.

This judge basically ruled that while he wasn’t found guilty of raping her based on NY’s narrow definition, the colloquial use of the word rape is functionally what he did to her.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Wait. Really? Still? What backwards planet are we still living that one of the largest states has deemed that men can’t be raped by women?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No he isn't lol. You're not a convicted rapist unless you get convicted for rape/sexual assault. There were no criminal charges, no conviction. She won a dubious civil suit where she doesn't even know what year she was assaulted.

[–] DrZoidberg 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would you defend a rapist? Trump is a rapist, as proven in court. Forcibly fingering someone is rape, by definition.

Trump is a rapist piece of shit. This was proven in court. It was been affirmed he is a rapist when his defamation case was tossed, because the statements that he raped Carroll are factual, and cannot be considered defamatory, because he is, in fact, a rapist.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

Why would you defend a rapist?

Why would you take anything I said as "defending" him? Read it again.

You're not a convicted rapist when you haven't been convicted. There is no conviction in a civil suit. He was not criminally charged.

Civil suits are not the same as criminal ones. The burden of proof is significantly higher in a criminal case, which is likely why she went the civil route - because she knew that she would never win a criminal suit.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Yet the Rubes keep on donating...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

At some point you’d think people would get sick of it. But the media keeps talking about his bullshit, his supporters still love him, and the rest of us are enjoying the endless losing.

I am however starting to hit a wall with him period.

Someone had an extension that could block him from what you saw on the internet, and I’m starting to think about getting set up.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Glad I don’t live my life in a way where I’d have to shout “defamation” in order to cover up being a giant piece of shit human being.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also not raping people really cuts down on your legal problems

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You’d think so.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A rapist, philanderer, incest enthusiast, fucks porn stars, embezzles funds, multiple bankrupt man is somehow idolized as a paragon of Christianity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Wait...did you think Christianity has anything to do with the teachings of Christ? That's silly. You're silly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday dismissed Trump’s argument, ruling Carroll’s statement on the cable network was substantially true and that “[t]here would have been no different effect on the mind of an average listener.”

Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, separately rejected Trump’s defense that he has “absolute presidential immunity” in the case.

In May, a jury heard one of those cases and found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defaming Carroll last year by denying her story.

“We are pleased that the Court dismissed Donald Trump’s counterclaim,” Carroll attorney Robbie Kaplan, who is not related to the judge, said in a statement.

“That means that the January 15th jury trial will be limited to a narrow set of issues and shouldn’t take very long to complete,” she continued.

Jean Carroll looks forward to obtaining additional compensatory and punitive damages based on the original defamatory statements Donald Trump made in 2019.”


I'm a bot and I'm open source!