I know there was a lot of discussion on here about what was and wasn’t proven at the Carroll trial but now, thanks to Trump’s idiotic appeal, Judge Kaplan clarified that based on NY law, Trump did in fact commit rape (albeit in the context of a civil trial). How does Trump handle winning so much?
Everyone with a functioning brainstem knows he is a rapist. I think your thread would be better served with a more factually descriptive headline.
Rut roh, the (lesser) attorney on here who told us all about how Trump had a slam-dunk defamation claim that would be resolved on summary judgment is not going to be happy if this is accurate.
Speaking of saying the quiet part loud, here's the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination expressing his admiration for the Chinese Communist Leader.
Trump is getting some bad legal advice on this case to be sure, but this ruling doesn't change anything about the nature of the proceeding. Rape and/or sexual assault, both very serious crimes no matter the jurisdiction, have not been charged in criminal court, let alone a verdict rendered. I like how you put "(albeit in the context of a civil trial)" in parentheses at the end, as an afterthought. If he's such a bad guy, there shouldn't be a need to play on words.
It wasn’t an afterthought, it was setting forth a distinction because if I didn’t do it the first thing you would have posted was that this was a civil trial. And it’s not a play on words, it’s a simple fact, whether he’s a good guy or not. You’re the one wordsmithing here not me. The elements of rape under the NY penal code are the elements of rape, whether the charge is civil or criminal. I think the judge is more familiar with the code than you and I are, so I’ll defer to him and not a monikered poster on an internet chat page.
And who here was claiming a moral distinction between sexual assault and rape? In a sense, the judge is making Trump's point. He cannot be guilty of sexual assault and be innocent of rape at the same time, per your interpretation of the NY penal code. In other words, if the anonymous jury found that he did not rape her, then by default, they could not find he sexually assaulted her in the same instance, if there is zero distinction between the two crimes.
The funny thing is I run into plenty of his supporters over in the football forum and they're constantly bitching and moaning about what a travesty it is when athletes get away with rape (like Jameis Winston, even though he was never convicted)...but they'll happily support a slimy corrupt politician like Trump who has been accused of 20+ rapes. Make it make sense LOL SMH
Obama admired him in public too... So, what's your point? But Obama liked his system of governance which is a whole new animal.... freaking communist that he is.
They can't change the charges to rape... I wonder who the judge is helping here. Not only that, the state of New York changed the legal status of the Statute of Limitations.... and that was tampering with this case to begin with. Even the "victim" said out loud on TV, several times, that she was NOT RAPED by Trump. So, all of you clowns are making up rape on this site and you should be ashamed of yourselves for such a deliberate invention.