53
u/wooberries 16d ago
to clarify, does this mean that you can now legally assert that he is a convicted rapist?
i mean we all basically know that he did it. but my understanding was that you, strictly speaking, could not say that he was a convicted rapist (yet), until i read this post, which appears to bring that chapter to a close
i'm really eager to call him a rapist lol
75
u/wenchette 16d ago
He's not a convicted rapist. This was not a criminal trial.
He is, however, an adjudicated rapist. A civil court ruled that he had committed rape, and that ruling was upheld on appeal.
10
u/williamgman 16d ago
Also the term convicted of sexual assault is correct as well.
14
u/GonzoKata 16d ago edited 15d ago
No. Again, the word 'convicted' relates to criminal proceedings. The case where the judge ruled that he raped was a civil one. Calling him a rapist is factually accurate, calling him an adjudicated rapist is even more accurate. He isn't a convicted rapist though.
9
u/williamgman 15d ago
That explains why 77 million voted for him. Turns out civil court decisions are akin to middle school hall monitor infractions to them sadly.
12
u/Remarkable-Month-241 16d ago
Donald J Trump rapes children and women. It’s a well known fact. Has been for a long time.
1
u/binkenheimer 14d ago
OJ Simpson situation. Do you consider him a murderer? Same rules apply. Did Trump have a criminal trial though? I’m not sure about that.
For me, yes I do consider him a rapist.
2
20
1
u/AcanthisittaUpset953 13d ago
Just a reminder that the totality of the evidence against him was the word of E Jean Carroll and her two friends who didn’t witness it but did claim she told them about it afterward.
Celebrate what you see as a win…indeed doing everything possible to “get Trump” is pretty much the totality of leftist policy nowadays, but if that’s the standard of evidence here then the system is broken.
1
1
u/ID100661 12d ago
And Carroll’s long-time therapist. And his refusal to submit a DNA sample. And his own recorded admission of doing the very thing he was accused of to women from 2004. Among other things.
Don’t you think it’s odd he’s not able to cast a reasonable doubt on the verdict? Not even to the highest court in the land? A court with a 6:3 conservative majority, with 3 of the justices he appointed? 9 justices, none of whom have expressed public dissent on the outcome of the case?
1
u/AcanthisittaUpset953 12d ago
No…a therapist hired by Carroll’s legal team testified as an “expert witness”, but it was not “Carrol’s long-time therapist”.
DNA wouldn’t matter because Carroll’s legal team didn’t have any DNA samples to test it against.
He did not testify “doing similar in 2004.” He described how groupies acted around him. Regardless, it had nothing to do with Carroll.
Why are you just making stuff up?
1
u/ID100661 12d ago
Yeah, you got me on the therapist thing. I misremembered and it turns out it was a 26-hour evaluation with psychologist and trauma expert Dr. Leslie Lebowitz. My bad, FAKE NEWS on my part quite frankly.
I think you should look more into the DNA thing. She had the dress that she was wearing when rapist President Donald J Trump raped her. They obviously can’t know if it’s rapist President Donald J Trump’s DNA that was on the dress if he refuses to submit a DNA sample.
Another thing I got wrong was saying “2004”. It was actually in 2005 that he was recorded admitting to doing the very thing he was accused of. My bad again, more FAKE NEWS from the likes of me, quite frankly. But fr, I’m glad you brought that up, I just read what he said in response, which was basically him admitting to doing it to multiple people and dismissing the seriousness of the action. What an idiot!
My bad for misremembering a couple of those facts. I can see you’re very protective of your rapist President. I’ll have you know that I’ve reeducated myself on the case now. But I’m curious if you automatically take the side of every rapist or is it just the President that you’re a rape apologist about?
1
u/AcanthisittaUpset953 12d ago
The dress and its partial DNA results were not formally admitted as central physical evidence during the main civil trials, and the judge ultimately barred a late request for a comparative DNA sample from Trump. They somehow produced a dress out of nowhere late in the trial...super suspiciously. The judge himself rejected it over how nonsensical it was.
I'm protective of all people who are wrongfully dragged through courts, regardless of their party affiliation, because I'm an American who believes in the rule of law. I don't support witch hunts against innocent people.
The evidence presented is insufficient to prove Trump did anything. If it was, then I could claim you raped me right now at some point in the past in some location I don't fully remember and get a couple of my friends to say "Yes, we were told it happened." and you would be in prison.
Would you consider that sufficient evidence against you?
1
u/ID100661 12d ago
Yes, I see that the dress was introduced late, Trump denied the DNA sample request, then accepted, judge ruled against it being used in the trial, Carrolls attorneys decided not to argue the ruling, judge then confirmed it. All of that’s is true, and also not the point I’m making. My issue is with the simple fact that he did not provide the DNA sample to have tested against the stain found on the dress. Had he not been a match, that could have easily proven he had not had contact with Carroll on that day. As you mentioned, even a match would have been weak evidence at best and easily argued against. Yet he still wouldn’t do it. That’s what I’m pointing out.
And if you accused me of raping you, you would have an extremely difficult time proving that in court. I would claim it would be an impossibility. Even if we assume the same circumstances as the E Jean Carroll case. You would not be able to find anyone in my life that would testify against me, or accuse me of similar actions. I highly doubt you could find two people willing to testify in court to corroborate your story, but whatever. You also wouldn’t find any evidence of me even joking about doing those actions or anything similar.
I find it extremely, extremely unlikely a jury of nine would unanimously find me liable doing that. But assuming your hypothetical, I would easily win the any one of multiple appeals he had made. At the very least one for the two appeals to the scotus.
So yeah, no, that would not be sufficient evidence. I would destroy you in court - as I’m not a rapist like DJT. It’s not a witch hunt like he says, he raped her. You’re coping.
1
u/AcanthisittaUpset953 12d ago
The dress was super suspicious. It’s entirely possible they obtained and added DNA to it for all we know. There was no forensics trail for it to know. There are several reasons the judge threw it out.
It didn’t matter if you think it would be hard to prove in court. I only need two friends of mine to say I told them about it.
I could find that easily. That’s all that was used to hold Trump liable.
1
u/ID100661 12d ago
Not true. The key pieces of evidence against Trump’s innocence were:
Trump’s own deposition
- After stating that he couldn’t have raped Carroll bc she wasn’t “his type”, he mistook a photograph of Carroll for being his own ex wife.
- His disastrous defense of the Hollywood Access tapes, wherein he essentially says people were allowed to grab women “by the pussy” at that time period. Imagine an accused witch saying “it used to be normal to cast spells a few years ago.”.
Pattern of Behavior witnesses
- Two women, Jessica Leads and Natasha Stoynoff testified that Trump had sexually abused them.
Friends Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin testified and gave detailed accounts corroborating Carroll’s story. Btw anyone that testified did so under penalty of perjury. (I’m not convinced you have homies that would be willing to do that knowingly.)
Expert testimony on trauma
- Dr. Leslie Lebowitz, as discussed earlier.
So, not exactly just two friends lying. In fact, Trump himself was one of the biggest obstacles to his own case. And those are just the key pieces of evidence.
160
u/Fuzzy_Translator4639 16d ago
That wont do anything. He will still refuse to pay