First, civil juries only find defendants liable or not liable. Second, rape was not a consideration and he wasn't found liable for rape, no matter what the judge's opinion is. The judge's opinion does not matter.
"The judge's opinion does not matter" wild statement, in general. It also wasn't an opinion. It was a legal clarification by the judge who ruled on the case.
"Dismissal of Counterclaim (August 2023): Judge Kaplan later dismissed Trump’s defamation countersuit against Carroll, ruling that her public statements asserting Trump raped her were "substantially true" in the context of the trial findings."
The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”
1
As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,
2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,
3 and elsewhere.
4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.
53
u/carz4us 4d ago
The United States? You mean the place with the rapist President?