I get that, I am saying, what’s the pitch to the jury? “Yeah a court found I sexually abused her, but I didn’t rape her, so she’s being unfair to me”? What jury in the world, and especially in NY, will reward him monetarily after what he was already found liable for? At best they settle out of court and she agrees not to use that phrasing anymore. It just has zero chance of winning and is a typical trump lawsuit, but again, maybe NY proves me wrong.
You are looking at this the wrong way. Rape is a very specific crime. In most states, requires penetration. I am not aware of any states that don’t require penetration, but perhaps someone else on this message board can correct me. Sexual assault is different. It includes mere touching. This is sexual assault:
I think the pitch would be "The jury couldn't determine if I was forcefully jamming my fingers or penis into her vagina, and, thus, found me guilty of sexual abuse, so she's being unfair to me. This unfairness has clearly damaged me in the eyes of those who think it is reasonable behavior to jam your unwanted fingers into somebody's vagina, but think it is wrong to do the same with a penis."
Again, I’m not questioning there’s a difference. I am questioning the idea of any NY jury deciding he deserved a dime… she will have their sympathy likely, and he won’t be even remotely sympathetic, and if he testifies then even less so. It’s not a winnable case given the history between them, his personality and how he’s viewed in NY.
If you stick your finger in a vagina without consent that is typically rape. If there is no penetration, that is typically sexual assault. The difference is almost always penetration. But, these are state law crimes, and every state is different.
IIRC and I’m not going to look it up, NY law requires penile penetration- Carroll said she wasn’t sure what penetrated her and so he was found liable for sex assault and not rape. I could remember incorrectly though
They didn’t rule he sexually abused Carroll. They ruled that more likely than not, something happened that could have been as little as a peck on the cheek. The judge explained this to the jury very clearly before the trial began. Even if he was guilty of a peck on the cheek, that is not rape. She accused him of rape. She also later walked back that claim. There’s a big difference in the harm you can do to someone’s reputation if you accuse them of a peck on the cheek versus actual rape. If you want to call a peck on the cheek “sexual assault”, whatever. Still not what she claimed happened and the jury ruled in his favor on that.
If that’s the case in NY, then she may have a problem with Trumps lawsuit, but a New York jury is more likely to vote for Trump than award him damages. It’s just more PR to keep his denials in the news cycle.
That is the law in New York. Sexual abuse consists of penetration with objects other than the penis. The issue was that she couldn't definitively state what he put in her.
So using Trumpian logic, anyone who loses a lawsuit is ripe to be sued for defamation merely by having filed the initial claim in the first place? Good luck with that. And ironically, nobody loses more lawsuits as a plaintiff than Trump. Brilliant!!
The testimony she gave was graphic and described the assault. The jury found her credible. The assault was consistent with Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women on video which was allowed in court. In addition to other women describing being sexually assaulted by Trump. Whether she could tell the difference in what penetrated her, how does this make Trump look any better to anyone?
