Judge Lewis Kaplan rules that a Jury found that Trump RAPED E. Jean Carroll as the word 'RAPE' is commonly used

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hoping he gets everything he deserves as a rapist when he gets to prison. Just like his buddy Jeffrey.

Birds of a feather.

[Anonymous]

Trump and his disgusting enablers in Congress created this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A picture of a rapist.

He can lead MAGA from prison where most of them belong.

[Anonymous]

They are lined up around the block to take Trump to court for rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hoping he gets everything he deserves as a rapist when he gets to prison. Just like his buddy Jeffrey.

The untold crimes committed by rapists at Mar-a-Lago.

[Anonymous]

History will see judges in our country as a strong line of defense against the criminality of the orange buffoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0_1.pdf

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere. The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.

So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll. Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.” And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.

This jury did not award Ms. Carroll more than $2 million for groping her breasts through her clothing, wrongful as that might have been. There was no evidence at all of such behavior. Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of “rape” to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.

Joe Tacopina and Alina Habba have to be the worst attorneys in the history of our country, defending the worst president we have ever seen. Trump makes Nixon look like a boy scout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares.

+1 Y'all cain't take away mah freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares.

+1 Y'all cain't take away mah freedom.

It's like whack-a-mole with the defenders of the rapist. I'm sure the founding fathers were concerned about your freedom to love rapists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. The reports at the time was that the jury did not conclude rape. Was this a talking point from the Trump team, or did Jean Carroll make a claim of rape as defined under New York law that the jury disagreed?

The jury in the federal trial concluded that Trump digitally penetrating E. Jean Carroll did not meet the NY Penal Laws definition of rape.

Yesterday, the federal judge in that case ruled that the jury did find that Trump committed RAPE as the term RAPE is commonly used. Therefore Trump was found to be a RAPIST in his federal trial, just not under the NY legal statute.

That was not my question. I am asking if there were any claims made by Carroll in this case(apparently there is another defamation by Carroll that has not gone to trial) that was rejected by the jury.

[Anonymous]

Rapist from now to eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. The reports at the time was that the jury did not conclude rape. Was this a talking point from the Trump team, or did Jean Carroll make a claim of rape as defined under New York law that the jury disagreed?

The jury in the federal trial concluded that Trump digitally penetrating E. Jean Carroll did not meet the NY Penal Laws definition of rape.

Yesterday, the federal judge in that case ruled that the jury did find that Trump committed RAPE as the term RAPE is commonly used. Therefore Trump was found to be a RAPIST in his federal trial, just not under the NY legal statute.

That was not my question. I am asking if there were any claims made by Carroll in this case(apparently there is another defamation by Carroll that has not gone to trial) that was rejected by the jury.

Read the thread, the last few pages cover this. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/405/859014.page
He was not found liable for rape but he was found liable for sexual assault and defamation. Then Trump’s stupid attorneys sued her for still saying he raped her. The judge is clarifying that the sexual assault Trump was found liable for is often called rape in common parlance, therefore saying he raped her is not defamation.

Say it with me. HE RAPED HER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. The reports at the time was that the jury did not conclude rape. Was this a talking point from the Trump team, or did Jean Carroll make a claim of rape as defined under New York law that the jury disagreed?

The jury in the federal trial concluded that Trump digitally penetrating E. Jean Carroll did not meet the NY Penal Laws definition of rape.

Yesterday, the federal judge in that case ruled that the jury did find that Trump committed RAPE as the term RAPE is commonly used. Therefore Trump was found to be a RAPIST in his federal trial, just not under the NY legal statute.

That was not my question. I am asking if there were any claims made by Carroll in this case(apparently there is another defamation by Carroll that has not gone to trial) that was rejected by the jury.

Read the thread, the last few pages cover this. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/405/859014.page
He was not found liable for rape but he was found liable for sexual assault and defamation. Then Trump’s stupid attorneys sued her for still saying he raped her. The judge is clarifying that the sexual assault Trump was found liable for is often called rape in common parlance, therefore saying he raped her is not defamation.

Say it with me. HE RAPED HER.

'Not found liable for rape.' is not the same as accused of rape and the jury disagreed. In light of the latest statement from the judge, I am wondering if there was a specific accusation that the jury rejected, or whether this was just a talking point by Trump. The other thread doesn't provide clarity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. The reports at the time was that the jury did not conclude rape. Was this a talking point from the Trump team, or did Jean Carroll make a claim of rape as defined under New York law that the jury disagreed?

The jury in the federal trial concluded that Trump digitally penetrating E. Jean Carroll did not meet the NY Penal Laws definition of rape.

Yesterday, the federal judge in that case ruled that the jury did find that Trump committed RAPE as the term RAPE is commonly used. Therefore Trump was found to be a RAPIST in his federal trial, just not under the NY legal statute.

That was not my question. I am asking if there were any claims made by Carroll in this case(apparently there is another defamation by Carroll that has not gone to trial) that was rejected by the jury.

Read the thread, the last few pages cover this. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/405/859014.page
He was not found liable for rape but he was found liable for sexual assault and defamation. Then Trump’s stupid attorneys sued her for still saying he raped her. The judge is clarifying that the sexual assault Trump was found liable for is often called rape in common parlance, therefore saying he raped her is not defamation.

Say it with me. HE RAPED HER.

'Not found liable for rape.' is not the same as accused of rape and the jury disagreed. In light of the latest statement from the judge, I am wondering if there was a specific accusation that the jury rejected, or whether this was just a talking point by Trump. The other thread doesn't provide clarity.

Then find the reporting on the case. It could be that some jurors were in favor of finding him liable for rape as well but not enough.

[Anonymous]

I really am curious about what percentage of the U.S. electorate will vote for a rapist.