A federal judge has gone to great lengths to make clear Trump really did rape E. Jean Carroll
motherjones.com
District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said it multiple times: Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Kaplan wrote it in May 2023, when he presided over one of the trials against Trump. And he reminded jurors of the rape this week, during the latest proceedings in the multi-layered, winding rape and defamation cases brought against Trump by Carroll.
Did she call him the rapist Donald J Trump? The same Donald Trump who raped E Jean Carroll? The woman who was raped by Donald Trump? The same rapist who also raped his wife? The same rapist Donald J Trump who described sexually assaulting woman on a radio show? The same rapist who spied on nude underage girls at his pageant? Because Donald Trump is a rapist as a matter of legal fact.
A rapist who is not only sickeningly still walking free, but is the frontrunner for the Nazi party.
I'd say that it's a new low for the Nazi party, but we all know it's not.
I mean, that has more to do with how low the bar has been set. Trump has been digging diligently for decades, but the bar is halfway through the planet’s mantle.
Mantle, lol Everybody knows the Nazis fled to hollow earth at Antarctic...
The thing is, when you allow the single opposing party in our system to run against a literal Nazi party, no one wins. Except the wealthy of course.
Trump and his lawyers have been really pissing off both the judge and the jury with how unseriously they're treating the proceedings. They're gonna take two hours (an absurdly short time for a jury) and write a check for $15mil, I bet.
Trump will never pay anyone. They're going to have to garnish his pension from being president.
I am not a lawyer, but according to this site: https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/will-filing-for-bankruptcy-stop-a-civil-lawsuit.html
"Bankruptcy will stop almost all civil litigation matters except for family court cases involving domestic support obligations, at least temporarily."
He's looking at about 400 mill from the New York Fraud trial.
This is civil litigation. He's going to pull the Rudy G. maneuver.
It wouldn’t even be the first time he’s had to declare bankruptcy. For the ultra wealthy, bankruptcy doesn’t mean you’re financially ruined; It just means the bank has a bad day when they find out you aren’t repaying them.
There’s an old saying along the lines of “If you owe the bank $100k and can’t repay it, you have a big problem. If you owe the bank $100M and can’t pay it back, the bank has a big problem.”
Bankruptcy doesn't mean you don't have to pay the debts, it means the court is given control of your finances and decides who gets paid from it if you don't have enough to pay everyone. Declaring bankruptcy would result in his accounts being wiped out.
Not the one in Moscow.
Assuming he doesn't get back in in 2024 (or 2028) and exonerate himself from his own crimes.
The president cannot pardon state level crimes let alone state level civil judgements.
Okay, sure, buuut... what if his name is Donald Trump and he REEEEEALLY wants to?
The President can't declare he won an election he lost. Didn't stop him from trying.
Yeah, sure. But if Trump pardons an offense in a Republican state, criminal or civil, which way do you think the state would swing?
This is a civil trial, there are no crimes to pardon.
True, but I'm confident that alone won't stop Trump, certainly not his attempts anyway.
We have to remember this is someone who does not play by the rules. He relies on everyone else doing so.
There’s still one other role for him to piss off if he wants to go for the trifecta.
Not in a civil trial, unfortunately.
I know. I’m just keeping score at home and looking to be able to say “That’s a bingo!”
I think they are likely to return an award for punitive damages that is closer to $150 million.
How did you come up with that number?
A few factors:
Carroll's attorney Robbie Kaplan made it a point to strategically and repeatedly use Trump's claims of being a multi-billionaire against him, including in his opening statement where he asked the jury to return punitive damages that would be sure to stop further defamation based on his self-attested net worth.
After seeing the amount that the jury returned in the Ruby and Shay Moss case against Rudy Giuliani I think that it is reasonable to expect this jury to weigh that in their deliberations, and return a similar or even greater amount in this case due to the actual finding of rape.
Everybody wants to be king for a day, and jury's historically punish the fuck out of their peers when they feel they are being disrespectful towards the victim, the court, or the jury itself. In this case I would expect them to throw the book at Trump to make a statement about the power of the jury system in the United States.
I am confident in saying that the award for punitive damages in this case will be far greater than most are expecting. I wouldn't be surprised if it was even more than $150 million. You can come back here and tell me I'm a moron if I got this totally wrong, but I don't think I do.
Considering Alex Jones' judgment was $1 billion (not that he's even pretended to pay any of it), I think caps are off the table.
I'll put the under-over at 250M
Not even counting that he's acting like a spoiled cunt during the proceedings, in full display to the jury
So more like $400M
The jury is free to return so much more (or less, heaven forbid!) than sought.
So when is somebody going to sentence this shit weasel?
Rape has a statute of limitations. Even if he came forward and said flat out that he raped her, he can’t be charged criminally for it. He can be charged civilly though, which is why he keeps claiming it never happened.
You yanks and your rapey presidents
@DevCat @politics
Don't forget our rapey Supreme Court Justices that serve for life and take bribes with no consequence!
You Brits and your rapey royals. At least our rapists aren't just parasitic figureheads, I guess.
"Brits"? He's the most Australian Aussie I think I've ever seen.
If they don't want to be called Brits then they should stop being part of the British Commonwealth, duh
So has reality.
He rapes and he saves, but he rapes more than he saves.
He doesn't save though.
He saves classified documents
He steals classified documents, minor yet critical distinction.
Is this the best our country can do? Two dinosaurs who act inappropriately around women and children?
I think you are (intentionally?) confusing the large gap and missing the nuance between raping, potentially even worse things as we’ve recently got more proof of, and acting goofy and awkward with greetings or whatever. Both can be described inappropriate, sure, but you have to realize there’s a long way between rape, pedophilia, and awkward greetings with kisses to forehead or whatever.
He assaulted Tara Reid and you call it a kiss on the forehead? Your blue hat must be full of mercury. You're sick
I’m sick? Blue hat?
At this point it’s clear you’re just intentionally being provocative and contrarian.
If you had a specific case to point out, such as that one, you could have just done that, instead of whatever the fuck this is.
I still don’t know the case you are referring to, which could have been a great moment to educate and inform others, instead you spent the opportunity attacking and calling me sick, for what? You boggle me. Makes no sense.
They're talking about the lying sack of traitorous shit, Tara Reade, who has a hard time telling the truth about ANYTHING, oh, and defected to Russia when things got spicy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation
@evatronic @orgrinrt You yanks and your perverted presidents
believe women
This is what you get when you never leave your echo chambers. Absolutely fucking retards strutting around thinking they have a fucking clue when they're horrifically misinformed.
Two?
The right seems to think- though I’m not sure think is really the correct term but… they seem to think Biden is a rapist too. Basically anything Trump is accused of, Biden automatically has done also.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper
@news@lemmy.world @Pratai@lemmy.ca
Sexual assault. Not rape. Both are horrible but there is a difference.
@aStonedSanta Good hill to die on
Yes. I will gladly die on it. raping multiple women is worse than sexually assaulting one.
@aStonedSanta If you think I'm advocating for either you need reading lessons
A claim is not the same as a conviction. My god… what is going on in public schools nowadays? Is simple logic not taught anymore?
The right homeschools.
Fun fact: the UK defines rape as "penetration with his penis", so, in the UK and legally speaking, a woman can't rape a man.
Instead, it would be sexual assault, which has the same sentencing range. However, we all know that female rape against males is not prosecuted as harshly, if at all.
Not that women have better luck in court, mind. It's all messed up, and it's not like locking someone up actually stops them from doing it again as soon as they get out. Detention is not an effective deterrent - the most effective deterrent is the certainty of being caught. After that, rehabilitation is needed. But hey, private prisons need bums in cells.
I don't think this comment is appropriate in this comment thread.
The core here is a famous and powerfull rapist got away with it and made light of the crime and defamed the victim. Then was found liable in civil court for the defamation.. went out of court.. and F-ing defamed her again immediately.
I hope they throw the book at him and fine him into the ground with punitive damages. He says he is a billionaire.. so let's test if a 500 million fine will get him to stop defaming the victim.
I hope Ms Carrol becomes the owner of Mar-a-lago and turns it into a Summercamp for lgbti youth.
I appreciate the context you gave after this statement, however I disagree with the conclusion you started with.
The purpose of my comment was to highlight that New York isn't all that unique in its definition of rape - there are others that are similar. However, in New York, state law is superseded by Federal law. The judge here has treaded on eggshells to make a declaration that fits under federal law, but doesn't quite line up under state law. Such a declaration wouldn't even be possible under UK law.
I, too, hope that Trump actually faces the consequences of his corruption. I hold my breath in anticipation, though, rather than celebrate him merely being told off.
The judge made it clear that it was rape even if it didn't fit the definition of rape under New York state law.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll
Yes, that's what I said. The judge said it was rape (under federal law), while the jury said it was not (under NY law, which is the same as UK law here).
That fact is not fun nor is it relevant.
Not fun, sure, but how is the legal definition of "rape" of a prominent jurisdiction not relevant - especially in a discussion about how Federal laws says rape is any penetration of the vagina, but the New York state definition require a penis - just like UK law?!
NY law is closer to UK law than US federal law. That's the subtext of what I said. You have just jumped on a bandwagon here, and haven't contributed anything of any significance.
Booooo to you.
I'm trying to highlight shit that is wrong in the world. You're just trying to say I'm wrong because I'm talking about things that are wrong.
This comment, aside from the wild assumptions and self pity, is much more relevant than the first. Go with the subject matter here as your first statement next time. Your original comment was too much "sub" and not enough "text".
Mate I've had faaaaar too much rum tonight to avoid self pity. But yeah, imma sub some shit with my text.
If your comment here was about atrocities happening in Palestine the reaction would have been the same. Yes, it's wrong, but it's off topic.
How is it off topic to highlight that NY isn't alone in its legal definition of rape?
You're getting shit on for raising a perfectly valid point regarding how our society views the subject of this post.
People don't want to be shown the hypocrisy of their positions though so like we see time after time when people want to talk about gun control after a mass shooting, 'now is not the time or place' to address these issues and politicize this awful tragedy.
All forms of sexual assault should be taken seriously. The imbalance in the laws is an injustice to all victims.
Exactly. We can't address these nuanced issues without actually discussing them openly.
IMO, US federal law is right - rape doesn't need to involve a penis to be rape. NY and UK law are wrong, as they imply a woman cannot rape a man, or that a woman cannot rape another woman, or that a man isn't raping a woman when he doesn't use his penis.
I think rape should be seen as any sort of involuntary sexual penetration, with any thing. Rape is a form of sexual assault, but sexual assault also includes lesser offenses such as flashing.
Convicting a rapist for what could be viewed as a lesser offense isn't really sufficient.
Colloquially, we still call them rapists, even if the legal term is different. Similarly, we don’t call people common assaulted, even if that’s the legal term. They are attackers, etc.
"Colloquial rape", unfortunately, doesn't cut the mustard in a legal setting. This is, apparently, a particularly relevant subject when discussing rape law in NY.
This also actually points to something I've used as a challenge for people who are hard lined right/vs/wrong:
If someone robs a bank, but they aren't caught, are they still a bank robber?
No, of course not. Legally it's sexual assault. It still meets that criteria from all I've seen. We still call female perpetrators rapists, even though without a penis they don't meet the criteria.
You're missing the point. Hes done something the judge considers rape. He's a rapist. It also didn't happen in the UK, so even with a penis it wouldn't meet the criteria.
However, if it had happened in the UK, he'd still face the same legal repurcussions and everyone would call him a rapist. Legally, though, h d be guilty of sexual assault rather than rape.
No, it happened in NY, which happens to have a somewhat similar legal definition of rape requiring penetration with the penis - per the article.
He was convicted in NY of sexual assault with his fingers, but the jury stopped short of a rape conviction involving his penis. If the same reasoning had been made in a UK court, then he would have had the same conviction.
No, it was a civil case, not criminal. It was about defamation.
Yes, a civil case in NY, in which a jury ruled that Trump had committed sexual assault.
The fun part is that, while sexual assault is a crime and a court has ruled he did that, he's still not actually convicted of the crime of sexual assault - we can say it's more than 50% likely he did it, but we can't quite say it's more than 99%.
It's a bit like OJ Simpson, who got off on the criminal murder charge, but then lost the civil case for killing. Except in this case there was no criminal trial.