I’ve been digging into the whole rape thing, correct me if I’m wrong but it looks a lot like a smear campaign than anything else, that is which to say, there is zero evidence he did this and yet the mainstream media has been instructed to go hard with it lately to perhaps persuade the public to vote against him… thoughts?
“As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr. Trump, in fact, did ‘rape’ Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.” - Lewis A. Kaplan: Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Listen, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not trying to say I am.
It’s widely understood that civil litigation is held to a lower level of scrutiny than criminal proceedings are.
It’s widely accepted that jury trials are more prone to error than other types of hearings.
The legal meaning of the word “implicit” in that sentence is something close to “we didn’t ask the jury about this, but something they did rule on could be interpreted as implying it”.
I’m not making an excuse for trump or normalizing rape when I say the following:
By “digging into” do you mean “reading about it on truth social”? Because that is the only way in which someone might look into this situation and conclude trump isn’t guilty
I’ve been digging into the whole rape thing, correct me if I’m wrong but it looks a lot like a smear campaign than anything else, that is which to say, there is zero evidence he did this and yet the mainstream media has been instructed to go hard with it lately to perhaps persuade the public to vote against him… thoughts?
“As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr. Trump, in fact, did ‘rape’ Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.” - Lewis A. Kaplan: Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Am I reading this right that it’s because a civil decision by jury implies rape?
Pretty much, except it may be more appropriate to replace “implies” with “determined there was sufficient evidence to conclude”
Listen, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not trying to say I am.
It’s widely understood that civil litigation is held to a lower level of scrutiny than criminal proceedings are.
It’s widely accepted that jury trials are more prone to error than other types of hearings.
The legal meaning of the word “implicit” in that sentence is something close to “we didn’t ask the jury about this, but something they did rule on could be interpreted as implying it”.
I’m not making an excuse for trump or normalizing rape when I say the following:
That is paper fucking thin.
A civil court conviction seems like enough for me
He’s been on Epsteins plane 7 times. He was his friend.
Trump also knew Epstein liked “younger girls”.
It’s all in court documents
By “digging into” do you mean “reading about it on truth social”? Because that is the only way in which someone might look into this situation and conclude trump isn’t guilty
I use twitter because it has the community notes thing and tends to allow both sides of the spectrum to state their views
Ever the optimist I see