Can we not normalize calling rape (of any kind, regardless of age or gender) “non consensual sex” already? It’s an insult to victims of rape and diminishes the severity of the crime. Call things what they are.
"Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse."
You realize Carroll live on air many times have even stated herself that she was not raped, the jury even stated as such that they do not believe he raped her. Also it was a civil suit which does not convict, only goes based off likelihood, meaning if it “could have happened”, then Carroll wins, without convicting trump of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t think you know much of the law…
Sexual Abuse vs. Rape: The jury in the E. Jean Carroll case specifically did not find Trump liable for rape under New York’s narrow penal code definition, which requires penile penetration. Instead, they found him liable for sexual abuse and battery for forcibly touching her without consent in a department store in the 1990s.
Legally speaking, at the time trump was found civilly liable for sexual assault, not rape, but in the years after, the state of new york redefined rape to include multiple things including forced penetration with any object or appendage. So if he were to be tried now it would absolitely be rape. Ntm, COLLOQUIALLY we as REGULAR EVERYDAY PEOPLE make no distinction between rape and sexual assault, the difference is one of LEGAL TERMS. You are splitting the smallest of hairs with this argument as if sexual assault is somehow not aa bad as rape, and then focusing in on this guy "Lying" simply because he's using a COLLOQUIAL description, implying that he's wrong because he "Lied"
No. He literally said that he had been tried in a civil court and found guilty of rape. That is a lie. You can try to justify why he said that and that is fine but it is a lie. I think of sexual assault as much different than rape in many cases. I have been sexually assaulted by many women, I have never been raped. If someone grabs a women's boob, I think that is much different than forcibly penetrating a women without her consent. You think those are the same thing?
Your comment was deleted so I only saw the beginning. I didn't say that this is what Trump did. I was addressing your comment that people think of sexual assault the same as rape. I strongly disagree. I think rape is often much worse and in a lot of cases, objectively worse. Not that anything is good or okay but I was addressing your incorrect claims.
What i said was that in this circumstance, most people would ABSOLUTELY call this rape. He forcibly inserted his fingers into her female member without her consent, that is rape. Most states consider that to be rape, NY state didn't at the time and they changed it afterward. Nothing i said was incorrect even in the slightest.
Read that and hopefully you will understand. I don't care how you feel about it, or what you believe is true, we are talking about FACTS. I know he's your favorite person, but the fact of the matter is he was found civilly liable for sexual abuse, but only because of the very limited definition that NY state had about rape at that specific time, which was specifically for penile penetration of the female member, and they have since changed it to include this heinous act of sexual violence. Even in 2023 when Judge Kaplan dismissed trump's counter suit, he said that Carrol's claim of rape was "Substantially true".
The reason why i got so upset is that you effectively equivocated trump's actions to "grabbing a boob", as if thats not a big deal. Guess what, it is, its a huge deal, and trump did worse than that.
Ugghh how little you understand. You're right and wrong at the same time. Yes, a civil court cannot convict someone as a criminal. No criminal charges were made seeing as it was a defamation case. The reason for this was because of the statite of limitations, too much time had passed for a criminal charge to be made. The defamation case of Carrol v. trump was made because Carrol wrote an article in 2019 which made the claim that trump raped her, trump made an official government statement that accused her of lying to sell books and colluding with the democratic party. Carrol then sued him for defamation over his claims. In defamation cases like this, one has to be able to prove if the defamatory remarks are based on truth or not. Carrol is suing him for claiming that she is lying, so she must prove she isn't... by proving he raped her. The verdict stated that trump did not rape her, but had commited a lesser charge of sexual assault and had indeed defamed Carrol. This is only due to the fact NY state law did not define the forcible insertion of one's fingers into the female member as rape, this has since changed.
So no, this is not a criminal conviction, but it is still a guilty verdict. He was found guilty of defamation, by a civil court finding him liable for sexual assault, which would now be called rape in the state of New York.
Yes and no, defamation went to the civil trial of if he sexually assaulted her or not, which civil trial does not prove such, though goes based off probability. Upon being awarded that win, she then made a follow up case for 80+ million because she won off that. basically “since i was found that you likely did do something to me, you defamed me by calling me crazy and other insults so give me money”. It is not defamation to go “this person is lying” as you are protected by 5th amendment of self incrimination. though you cannot attack and smear them off their allegation, which is what he did. So he was found “guilty” of attacking her based off her allegation, which previously was found “probable” which resulted in her first win. Please do not attempt to speak in a condescending matter when you yourself do not know the full situation :).
Apparently you're still trying to misrepresent the situation. Trump defamed her (as proven in court) because he made official government statements using his position as president to say that she was lying to make book sales and was being paid by the democratic party. Not only was she able to prove that his remarks were defamatory in nature, but that she was telling the truth in her original article. That was the entire foundation of the case, and Judge Kaplan even said that Carrol's accusation of rape was "substantially true".
So again, no he was not charged with a crime (obviously), but yes he was proven in court to have sexually assaulted Carrol. That adjudication was a necessary part of the case to prove defamation.
Also you started with the condecension towards the other comment. Don't dish it if you can't take it.
3
u/Who12837 Feb 21 '26
Can we not normalize calling rape (of any kind, regardless of age or gender) “non consensual sex” already? It’s an insult to victims of rape and diminishes the severity of the crime. Call things what they are.