Judge Kaplan says the quiet part out loud

I feel like if I could beat him in a trial.

 

So, it doesn’t matter to you that Trump, more likely than not, sexually battered her. That is what the jury found. Based on polling, it seems that it doesn’t matter to GOP voters anyway. Criminal conviction is a very low bar for a president. Remember that Trump is the same guy who paraded Bill Clinton’s accusers at a press conference when he ran against Hilary. But Trump’s supporters measure him by a different standard. By the end of this week, he will be under three indictments. For crimes committed in the open— we all saw them. And we will learn more of what happened behind close doors. And it doesn’t matter. Crimes involving willful misuse of top secret defense material which he has freely admitted. And his attempt to steal the election. We all saw it. You know why it doesn’t matter? Because the GOP doesn’t care. Trump is their autocrat. If there is never a free election again and Trump stays in power, that is what that base wants. And it doesn’t matter what he does. This is unusual for the US. Bit not through world history. You don’t like that guy. But don’t diminish the fact there aren’t charges in the Carroll case or convictions (yet) to somehow suggest innocence or qualification if office. Our criminal system does not decide innocence. It decided if the government proved guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Proof more likely than not or clear and convincing is not enough.

 

It will be resolved in summary judgment. Just not the way that he thinks. The amateur lawyering is interesting to read. Posters voice an opinion about facts not alleged in a case or set forth in a legal opinion and legal principles that are inapplicable. Then criticize the ruling

 

Are you saying the judge can’t rule for Trump based upon Hunter and Hillary’s emails? The law is so unfair to conservatives

 

The answer is both are horrible human beings. Your scoring this like a football game is flawed.

 

Just say you’re a rape apologist (at least when it comes to Trump) and move on.

 

I agree. I would add that I think this judge is an effing, moron. (Here come the attacks). For this judge to claim, assuming he did so, that the jury found that Trump “raped” this woman, is directly contradicted by the effing jury verdict form. When asked if Trump raped her, the jury checked the box no. This judge is so stupid that he thinks he can substitute his opinion for that of the jury’s. That is not how our system works.

Now, for you dozen or so orange man bad folks on here, this post here is attacking a dumbass judge, not defending Trump. Let’s see how many people can’t read!

 

clueless. Sometimes facts Trump hatred.

 

Spot on brother! This whole “diplomacy” thing is way overrated. We have f’ing nukes…that’s all the diplomacy we need! HELL YEAH!!

 

And sometimes people defend despicable rapists, like some are doing in here.

 

Except, nobody in here has identified any rapist. Regardless, I haven’t seen anyone defend any person. I certainly didn’t. I defended the rule of law. Pointing out that the judge in this case is a dumb ass is not defending anyone. If you can’t acknowledge the difference, that is on you. Orange man bad.

 

Yes, Orange man bad because Orange man rapist. I know plenty of his supporters don’t care tho. Expected behavior from that contingent.

 

Sigh, so many errors. The statutes of limitations are creations of the various legislatures, they are free to amend theirs as they wish.

The judge's ruling, which apparently went completely over your head, is that "rape" has different meanings. New York's statutory definition of "rape" is extremely narrow. Florida does not even have a rape statute. We label that conduct "sexual battery" and it has a very broad definition that includes far more conduct than NY's law. The judge explained that ordinary citizens, those not using the statutory definition of rape, consider that it includes more conduct than NY's narrow statutory definition, including the very conduct Trump was found liable for having committed.

Florida's law:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

NY's law (there are links to other degrees on the page.):
Section 130.35 - Rape in the first degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 130.35 | Casetext Search + Citator

So don't pop off, call people clowns and suggest people should be ashamed of themselves when you have no idea what you are posting about.

 

My favorite was the judge denying Trump's voluntary offering of his DNA sample after Carroll's legal team had asked for it.

 

I'm not reading this shit. Sorry.

 

Yes, I do wish certain posters would stop insulting our intelligence by inferring Donald Trump could get an impartial civil jury trial in the southern district of NY.

 

Perhaps this was 5D chess on Trump's part to illuminate the duplicity of this court. The judge is attempting to argue that under NY law, sexual assault = rape, which may very well be true, although based on certain degrees, no less. The problem is if the jury said he didn't rape her, then based on the judge's ruling, he could not have simultaneously sexually assaulted her and vice versa. Notwithstanding the judge's explanation at the start of the trial that "sexual assault" could be a "peck on the cheek" and no more than that. Make it make sense, SDNY......

 

Perhaps you should stop speculating and actually read the jury instructions and the Judges opinion. That is necessary to assess whether these are inconsistent findings. What the judge said in the order at issue here is that the common understanding of rape and the statutory elements are different. And, Trump’s clam he was defamed because she said he raped her, but he only sexually assaulted her, is a ridiculous claim. The finding makes him defamation proof in this issue.

 

Snoozed.