That article is from right after the lawsuit was filed, 2016, and a lawyer for the New York victim center was already saying that this is just going to hurt the accuser more than it will hurt Trump because she could get her harassed.
Also don’t forget to mention it at every opportunity. The rapist Donald Trump must be called exactly that so people don’t forget we’re talking about a convicted rapist who for some reason is not a registered sex offender which, of course, doesn’t mean he’s any less of a rapist, which Donald Trump verifiably is.
He’s not a convicted rapist. It was a civil trial, not a criminal one. The trial decided that he did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll (but not legally rape, although the judge said it was rape despite the legal definition) but that resulted in a ruling for damages. The statute of limitations for a criminal trial had passed.
So he’s not a convicted rapist, but the judge at his civil trial involving rape said he was a rapist. But that’s why he isn’t a registered sex offender.
The problem is that calling it sexual assault doesn’t make it clear that he penetrated her with his penis without consent. The only reason it’s not “rape” is that it wasn’t a criminal trial.
No problem. I wish he had been convicted obviously. And I seriously doubt that is anywhere near the only time he’s raped a woman. But like so many other things in his life, he’s gotten away with it.
Trump was found to be a rapist by a jury because he used his fingers to sexually assault and violate a woman. The judge clarified that Trump raped Jean carroll.
No that’s literally not what they found, because it was not a criminal trial. That wasn’t the burden of proof. He may be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil court is not legally capable of proving that.
Trump was not criminally convicted as his rape trial was a civil case, not criminal.
Those jurors found Trump responsible for digital rape that in New york is defined as sexual assault, that the judge clarifiedas rape because trump violated a woman sexually, the new york legal term is just too narrow here for the finding because he used his fingers to violate her vagina.
I’m talking about the legal term, reasonable doubt. To prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in a court is a different process. One that isn’t done in a civil court, therefore it can’t prove it. That doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, just that a civil court can’t prove that.
So you’re just agreeing with what everyone else has clarified, that this is a civil, not criminal trial.
The jury and judge found Trump liable for rape. This finding is beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, baby hands is not criminally liable beyond a reasonable doubt, he is civilly liable for rape beyond a reasonable doubt according to judge and jury.
No. He means that a civil trial uses different evidentiary standards. In a civil suit the standard is “preponderance of the evidence”, while a criminal trial requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It’s factually wrong to say it’s beyond a reasonable doubt due to the civil suit.
You’re narrowly insisting on a verdict of criminal liability versus actual liability, which you aren’t going to find in a civil case.
I am referring to actual responsibility. I have no reasonable doubt that Trump is a rapist. The jury found a Trump liable for rape, and the judge clarified that Trump is liable for rape.
No matter how much you like this guy, Trump was found to be a rapist.
I do not like the guy. I’m explaining that beyond a reasonable doubt may be something you feel is appropriate, but it’s not because of the civil suit, because that’s not the standard of evidence in a civil suit.
I’m comfortable saying he was a rapist way before the civil trial.
You’re still just repeating and agreeing with everybody else in this thread who’s saying that this is a civil, not a criminal trial. I guess good job if that’s what you’re going for?
That is correct. This is a civil case. Not a criminal case.
The jurors, reasonably, do not doubt his liability of rape. The judge, reasonably, does not doubt that Trump is liable of rape.
You’re just being precious about a term that is not exclusively used in jurisprudence.
Trump was found liable of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, you’re being intentionally obtuse and awkwardly stubborn and nobody knows why but you.
Why use the exact same wording as a legal standard? You could have said “he’s a rapist, without a shadow of a doubt” and we’d have all known what you meant. Instead you decide you’re going to die on this weird ass ambiguous hill.
I’m using the term reasonable doubt to describe how beyond a reasonable doubt it is that Trump is a rapist.
You are implying that the court criminally found Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and railing against that criminal finding that nobody but you are putting forth.
I mean, some other people are making mistakes with the word convict in this thread, but they’re quickly corrected by the rest of the commenters.
Stick to whatever definition of reasonable doubt you prefer, but it doesn’t mean that in the real world, the judge and jury did not reasonably find his liability doubtful and therefore find Trump liable of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
A jury if his peers still found that Trump was a rapist. The judge in that trial clarified that the jury finding meant that Trump was a rapist.
This was after the Trump camp claimed, after losing the defamation suit, that none of this meant that Trump was a rapist.
So the judge explicitly clarified that the jury had found that Trump had committed rape.
This was the original comment. I said that they found he was more likely than not a rapist, not that he was a rapist beyond a reasonable doubt. That was my correction.
So nobody even mentioned reasonable doubt until you brought it up yourself and added a baseless correction of your own narrow definition of reasonable doubt from an imaginary criminal trial?
Does that mean we can openly call for the end of free speech for Nazis, or are you gonna tell me that Inam somehow “against freedom” and that they will preserve freedom when they gain power if we don’t suppress theirs?
No no that’s defamation, he’s merely a lying and raping enthusiast of Nazi rhetoric and practice, he has never been a registered member of any National Socialist Party.
My fucking uncle, who is normally a really nice person, had in his retirement party a big poster of Trump with “If you cant respect the president then get out of America.”
Now it’s “fuck Biden.” Rules for thee and not for me is the Republican way.
My 80+ year old Grandma who lives in conservative land has been calling the Trump flags around ‘Nazi flags’ since 2016 ahah. The media constantly acts like this is all shocking instead of completely expected, I guess to justify their moniker of ‘news’.
It was always pretty blatant with the rage against antifacists. Hitler loved to discredit the press by calling them liers as well and did make ‘intellectuals’ the enemy. I think ‘woke’ is just another word for it.
No! I don’t agree with Biden’s policy about Gaza and I want to punish him by pushing people not to vote for him or Trump. But it’s so wrong when this buffoon comes into power again. So I’ll bite my tongue and say the other party is worse. Even if that’s NOT the way to vote and it really diminishes minorities and representation.
His fascism blew over to some/most European countries and that’s soooo bad. I even read some posts in Belgium about putting Muslims in camps ‘for their own safety’ because this POC made it normal for all the basement racists to come out of hiding. Just no…
I just want him to die or disappear. Just vote him out so we can get back to real politics and what’s really important instead of this shit show. After you vote him out, THEN put pressure on Biden/Democrats to do better. It will be too late for Gazan children that are dying and dead tough…
The “both sides” people would have less to bang on about if Biden weren’t such a poor candidate and the Democrats weren’t such a poor alternative. Trump is a dogshit sandwich and Biden is merely a rabbit shit sandwich. Undoubtedly, Biden will do less long term damage to Americans (Palestinians… probably more than Trump) but I think you should be holding out for a candidate and a Party that won’t make you any kind of shit.
Both sides is legit because Clinton said deplorables and you defended it. Now Trump says vermin and you want it to be a big deal. It is literally the same thing and you don’t care when it’s your side but want everyone to get worked into a frenzy when it’s the other guy.
She said that hardcore Trump supporters are deplorable. Maybe not a great political move but I don’t see a problem with accuracy. She didn’t say she wanted to stamp them out like vermin, accuse them of made-up crimes for years, threaten vengeance or basically quote hitler verbatim, so not sure what you think the comparison is.
Calling people deplorable, and threatening to take action against de-humanized vermin is literally the same thing? That’s some grade-A motivated reasoning.
The poster pointed out that you have nothing and just say “both sides” and your response is an empty analogy repeating your “both sides” stupidity. Lol
And your analogy is way off. Biden is dry toast made from wonder bread. It’s not very nutritious and if you eat it long enough you might develop some kind of health issues long down the road. If you eat a shit sandwich you could catch a disease that can kill you.
Oh yah, that’s sold it to me. If you’re wondering where my allegiances lie, I’m a UK citizen living in London. Even the Labour Party here is to the right of me. The Democrats would never accept most of the Parliamentary Labour Party as members because centre-left here equals ‘undemocratically communist’ there. We’ve had universal healthcare since the 1940s and the Democrats still haven’t been able to implement it three quarters of a century later. Why is that? Because the Democrats are just as enthralled by your cult of greed as the republicans are. Yes, the Republicans are worse in that since the Tea Party incursion they are batshit unhinged but it still doesn’t make the Democrats a good choice.
Yeah, what I’m not doing is saying that both sides are equally as bad. That would be a false equivalence. I am pointing out that there would be a lot less room for people to make that false equivalence if one side were actually much better than the other rather than “less bad”.
But you carry on with your centrist nonsense, with any luck the dry toast is going to beat the fascist rapist because your fellow Americans will elect to eat the rabbit shit sandwich.
You called them both shit sandwiches, just one has less shit in it.
Maybe you could have made that argument pre-trump - but even that would be a stretch even if we can’t get everything we want from Democrats - but now that republicans have been completely captured by trump,who is all but completely openly being fascist, it just makes zero sense.
“One side literally tried to violently overturn an election they lost, and now their leader is openly using Nazi talking points and threatening the other side. But democrats have failed to pass universal health care, so those people calling them both shit sandwiches do have a point.”
The issue here and the flaw in your reasoning is that you’re defending Trump by saying “DeMs ArE BaD ToO”. Trump doesn’t deserve defending. Quit peddling the dems are bad too bullshit. No matter how much or little he’s done in his term for the US or any other country, Biden is without a doubt a better choice than fascist, rapist, state secrets selling, man-baby Trump. We all know the two party system sucks. We all know dems aren’t perfect. The point is anyone on the left is better than the scumbag known as Donald Trump, so drop the wannabe centrist bullshit.
I’m not defending Trump. That’s where your entire argument falls down. I am bemoaning the lack of an alternative to Trump that would give the American people the choices that they deserve.
The point is anyone on the left is better than the scumbag known as Donald Trump
Biden isn’t on the left he’s in the centre. Bernie Sanders and AOC are centre left but they ain’t running the show and never will be.
“I’m from the UK and your left isn’t as left as our left!” No one cares. But I don’t know what I expected. If you just want to die on this hill of extra chromosomes, be my guest. What a waste of time to debate with someone who argues symantics and isn’t capable of reflecting on anything they’re saying.
You don’t care that people are going bankrupt because they get cancer? You don’t care your police are running wild and killing innocent civilians? You don’t care that people are still defending slavery?
OK. I think I have explained myself in full and I don’t get what extra chromosomes have to do with any of it. I’m done. Thank you for your time.
You don’t care that people are going bankrupt because they get cancer? You don’t care your police are running wild and killing innocent civilians? You don’t care that people are still defending slavery?
Oh, centrists care about all of those. They’re the status quo that centrists want to preserve.
Democrats tried to reform health care in the Clinton terms and under Obama and both times, it was defeated and watered down by medical industry propaganda and Republicans. Meanwhile Republicans want to cut our existing socialized healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid) any chance they can get, and several solidly R states refused to even accept Federal funds and participate in the Medicaid expansion. So saying D’s are as bad on this issue is far from accurate. Try qualifying for Medicaid in a state like Oregon or Colorado vs. Texas or Alabama.
It literally is both sides in this case though. I mean fuck Trump and he has a long laundry list of other stuff to legitimately complain about him for, but Clinton had the whole “deplorables” thing. You guys were all cool with that and defended her. Now he Trump does basically the same thing and you wanna make it a big deal. Pick a rule and stick to it. Stop changing them depending on how much you like the person breaking them.
The difference is that Trump has an (increasingly literal) army of thugs ready and raring to inflict violence on us “vermin,” and you don’t. Trump is not just “calling [people] names;” he’s making credible threats.
Anybody who tries to minimize this with false equivalences is either dangerously naive or spreading disinformation.
Hah. Somebody on Reddit called mine “the most uninformed comment I’ve ever seen” for drawing that comparison. I haven’t logged in over there since June 30th, otherwise I’d go back and rub their face in it. Oh, also, I hate being right about this one.
Of course they did would anyone expect different? He’s a fascist and knows he can get away with it. Backing down would be worse PR for him he isn’t trying to please the kind of people who take offense to dehumanizing minorities.
especially lately I havnt even seen a picture he doesn’t look like a hateful angry maniac. how can someone like that be.considered for leadership. insane
I know this is not really the point of the thought experiment, but I would like to point out that if time travel did exist, our current timeline as we have already experienced it, would be the result of time travel. Our timeline would in fact be, the best version that could be produced by such technology and/or we have particularly inept time travelers.
Time travel can only create branching timelines by changing the past without creating a paradox. So the time travellers who killed Hitler may have succeeded, just not in this timeline (if this timeline is even one where time travel will be invented one day).
If time travel did exist, it seems unlikely that we would be in the ‘prime universe’ with no time travelers. That would be one out of 2^n timelines where n is the number of time travelers. Assuming each time travel splits all parallel timelines and not just the original.
Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesperson, responded to the backlash by calling critics “snowflakes” and promising that “their existence will be crushed” by Trump. In a statement to The Washington Post, Cheung said: “Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”
Cheung later clarified to The Post that he meant to say their “sad, miserable existence” rather than their “entire existence.”
Oh, that’s much better. Thanks for the clarification!
In all seriousness, though, it’s never a good sign when the clarification of a candidate going Hitler is to double down on the Hitler. There are going to be scary times ahead if Trump is allowed anywhere near the White House again.
It’s weird. No one ever said “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or “Nixon Derangement Syndrome” or “Reagan Derangement Syndrome”. And those guys really fucked around with the country. Maybe, if everyone seems to have “Trump Derangement Syndrome” there’s a realllllllly good reason?
He did the same thing in 2016, clear use of what seemed to be at least Nazi adjacent propaganda, and he doubled down on it, got elected, are people still doubting he literally supports neo-Nazis?
Add comment