All the news headlines and verdict said sexual abuse, which was kind of vague, but I just found out today that the judge clarified that this was a matter of legal definition and by the verdict of the trial and the case, trump has been found guilty of penetrative rape.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 214 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

"Found guilty" is inaccurate, since he was not charged with it as a crime. Rather, it was a finding of fact in a civil case. The standards of evidence are different, and a criminal prosecution would still have to prove the charge to a higher standard. But for purposes of civil liability, yeah, he did it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 48 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I thought about that, but since guilty isn't only a legal term and commonly implies responsibility for wrongdoing in general and the judge is clarifying trump is responsible for raping carroll regardless of the legal term used, naming his guilt is appropriate and perfectly accurate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    He is guilty in the ordinary sense. But "found guilty" is technical vocabulary for criminal courts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Why is he not in jail then? Crimes like these shouldn't be possible to change with a fine or whatever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Because, again, he wasn't convicted in criminal court. And again, there is a different burden of proof in civil cases (preponderance of evidence vs. "Beyond a reasonable doubt."). There are many reasons why a case may be brought in civil court and not criminal.

    One famous example is OJ Simpson. Ruled not guilty of murder in criminal court, but lost in civil court and had to pay Ron Goldman's family a fuck ton of money, as well as giving up any profits he may have made, or ever will make, based on the murders (that ridiculous book, etc).

    Not enough evidence to convince a jury in a criminal trial, but more than enough for civil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Do you guys use ‘Preponderance of Evidence’ as the standard of proof for civil cases in the US? In Australia we use ‘On the Balance of Probabilities’. I wonder if there’s a technical difference there.

    (Tiny pedantic note but the Burden of Proof is about who has to produce the evidence, not the level of evidence required to make a finding - that’s the Standard of Proof)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes we go by preponderance of evidence.

    Essentially it's 'whoever you Believe more' in civil cases, which is significantly lower than 'beyond a reasonable doubt ' we use for criminal trials.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    There is also the notion that is not all or nothing depending on the proof for and against a defendant. You can ask for X amount, but only get X-Y because the proof against the defendant weren't enough to grant all the X amount.

    In criminal court, you are either guilty or not and then, if you are guilty, you can have factors that reduces or lengthen the sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I haven't been following this tbh since I'm not American but I did read another comment that said something about the statute of limitations so maybe criminal charges can't be brought due to that weird part of the law where rape gets an expiry date.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Correct, the state passed a law allowing those cases where statue of limitations have been passed for criminal trails to still sue their attacker in civil court.

    It's been suggested this was passed specifically to target Trump, but a good number of sexual assaults never go reported and I believe a few hundred cases have come from this law.

    It has since expired, it was only valid for one year.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    The very fact that she said she could not tell if he used a finger or his penis kinda proves shes not lying... if she was set out to make money off him by lying Im pretty sure part of that lie would be "yeah his penus was def inside me bro"

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 35 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Found guilty

    Technically not, and this is an important distinction because the level of evidence required for a civil case is less than that of a criminal case.

    He has been found civilly liable for something legally distinct from rape

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Didn't she say that she wasn't sure if it was his penis or his fingers and that's why in NY they couldn't call it rape.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Few more explanatory quotes - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll

    Article says the jury found trump liable for digital(fingers) penetration, but not for irrefutable non-consensual penetration using his penis, which is the only way to legally be found liable for "rape" in NY.

    I have not watched or read a transcript of the trial yet, this is a true TIL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I cannot imagine the ordeal for the victim when a bunch of folks in suits discusses if someone forced his dick inside of you or "just" his fingers...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago

    Pretty horrifying.

    At least trump was found liable, though. I was thinking of a victim exposing themselves in the courtroom and the countless times a jury finds for the rich douchebag with more lawyers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    By any other name, would he still be a creep.

    Yes, the answer is yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago

    Not a convict because it was a civil case rather than criminal, trump is still a rapist according to a judge and jury.

    I only bring this up so that if you ever get in a debate or someone says he's not a rapist, they can't falsely dismiss that trumpi is a rapist on a technicality within your statement.

    Trump is a rapist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago

    Good ole Commander and Creep

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! tRump for prison 2023!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sooo... he's a rapist - as if we needed any confirmation of that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›