Donald Trump is a Rapist. Fact.

Zeedox

Zeedox

Resident Canadian
Dec 1, 2020
9,197
7,171
113
Canada's Ocean Playground
www.reuters.com

Donald Trump loses bid for new trial in E. Jean Carroll abuse case

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected Donald Trump's request for a new trial after a jury found the former U.S. president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

But Judge Kaplan said New York's penal law defines rape much more narrowly than ordinary people think of the term, and that Trump was wrong to insist it excused him.

"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," the judge wrote.

"Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and (ignored) evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump," he added.
Click to expand...

ucr.fbi.gov

Rape

ucr.fbi.gov

The revised UCR definition of rape is: Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Attempts or assaults to commit rape are also included; however, statutory rape and incest are excluded.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is a Rapist. Fact.
 
Sorry, the judge disagrees with you.

But Judge Kaplan said New York's penal law defines rape much more narrowly than ordinary people think of the term, and that Trump was wrong to insist it excused him.
Click to expand...

Penetration with anything these days is rape. You can thank a bunch of deputies who butt-fucked a kid with a broom handle for that.
 
Zeedox said:
I have to go with the judge on this one. They're more knowledgeable about law then you or I.
Click to expand...
Here you go:

Criminal trials deal in guilt where civil trials deal in liability. Guilt and liability are not the same things. A criminal jury uses trial evidence to make a determination of innocence or guilt. A civil jury will use evidence to make a finding of civil liability. That means they must find whether a civil defendant is liable or not liable for damages complained of in the civil lawsuit. Civil and criminal law require different standards of proof.

Source.

There is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE between the phrases "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" (criminal law) and "BY PROPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE" (civil law).

A criminal trial is based on evidence. In order to be found guilty, you must PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that any person can have that the person in question is guilty. A civil trial can and often is based entirely on what people say and think and nothing more. You don't have to actually prove anything. All you have to do is literally have a better story that somebody can believe, whether it's reasonable or not.

The judge is speaking out of turn completely and should have kept his big mouth shut.
 
Last edited:
Again, by preponderance.

It's this simple: in criminal court, you can't prove that alien abductions are real beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, you can prove they happen with nothing more than enough people telling the same story, and it wouldn't really take that many.

The Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard case was literally the same thing: there was absolutely zero evidence presented at all. Johnny told his story, Amber told hers. They picked Johnny.

Why? Because they didn't like Amber. It really is just that simple. Her story was just as believable as his, but that doesn't matter in civil court because it's not what you can prove, it's what the jury decides to believe.

In Trump's case he made the decision for them by not testifying at all. That left the jury with only one story to consider. The verdict was a foregone conclusion. No proof of anything was ever entered in evidence. It was literally her story, a few of her friends saying that she told them the same story, and that was it.

Trump actually offered his DNA as evidence but the judge ruled against him and didn't allow it.

Think about that long and hard for a moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom