A federal judge Monday dismissed former President Trump’s claim that E. Jean Carroll defamed him in May after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing the writer. The day after the verdict, C…
Not convicted, because it wasn’t a criminal trial. But the trial did determine it was a kind of sexual assault that, while not legally fitting the term rape in New York State, can colloquially be considered such. Which is why Carroll has every right to say he raped her.
Without going into the sordid details, Carroll couldn’t prove whether Trump used his penis or his finger (although she claims both), and it has to be a penis in New York Law for it to be rape. So it went to the lesser verdict of ‘sexual abuse.’ It’s really a technical thing. Most people would consider him using his finger to be rape too, I would wager.
NY defines rape as penetration with a penis. Since he penetrated her with his fingers, it could only be considered sexual assault by NY’s definition. Worth noting that she claimed he penetrated her with both, but could only prove in court that he penetrated her with his fingers.
This judge basically ruled that while he wasn’t found guilty of raping her based on NY’s narrow definition, the colloquial use of the word rape is functionally what he did to her.
Just a reminder that Trump is a convicted rapist, by definition of the word rape. It’s legally defined as sexual assault in NY.
Trump is a convicted rapist.
Not convicted, because it wasn’t a criminal trial. But the trial did determine it was a kind of sexual assault that, while not legally fitting the term rape in New York State, can colloquially be considered such. Which is why Carroll has every right to say he raped her.
How does the state of NY define it? But that seems like very clear cut rape to me.
Without going into the sordid details, Carroll couldn’t prove whether Trump used his penis or his finger (although she claims both), and it has to be a penis in New York Law for it to be rape. So it went to the lesser verdict of ‘sexual abuse.’ It’s really a technical thing. Most people would consider him using his finger to be rape too, I would wager.
NY defines rape as penetration with a penis. Since he penetrated her with his fingers, it could only be considered sexual assault by NY’s definition. Worth noting that she claimed he penetrated her with both, but could only prove in court that he penetrated her with his fingers.
This judge basically ruled that while he wasn’t found guilty of raping her based on NY’s narrow definition, the colloquial use of the word rape is functionally what he did to her.
Wait. Really? Still? What backwards planet are we still living that one of the largest states has deemed that men can’t be raped by women?