i hate this but he’s been found guilty of sexual assault but specifically not rape afaik… legal shit which isn’t worth correcting unless you add “i’m a court of law” etc
If you’re gonna be picking nits, then at least commit to it.
Trump was found legally liable for sexual assault (and defamation). This is a civil verdict, and it means that the jury found it more likely than not that these things happened. The judge also clarified that the jury’s finding meets the “common, everyday definition of rape”, so while it doesn’t meet the highly specific statutory requirements of New York (which required penile penetration), it is rape.
There was no criminal case, however, and the word “convicted” is specifically used for criminal trials, so it can’t be used here.
The bar is also different: the criminal standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”, while for a civil case it’s “preponderance of evidence” (ie, more likely than not).
I don’t think anyone doubts it happened, but a criminal trial can be gruelling and ultimately lead to nothing. At least she got some vindication, even if it falls short of locking that disgusting scumbag for good.
You might want to look at right wing social media - there’s a whole lot of claims that it didn’t and that she based her story on Law and Order SVU S13 E11 from 2012. Given the circles she traveled in, it’s at least as likely that the SVU episode was inspired by her telling someone connected to the writers the story.
but a criminal trial can be gruelling and ultimately lead to nothing.
Also, odds are that it’s past statute of limitations, and those exist in large part because memories fade and evidence doesn’t last forever making crimes both more difficult to prove and more difficult to defend against over time.
Her civil case would have already been past statute of limitations, but NY passed a law that created a temporary window where the statute of limitations for civil suits for sexual assault was retroactively revoked. It’s pretty obvious that the goal was specifically to allow Carroll to sue Trump, but it’s written a more broadly than that essentially as plausible deniability. I was actually surprised that NY law didn’t get stopped under the same grounds that retroactively expanding the statute of limitations has been shot down in the past - usually the line the courts will follow is that if you expand a statute of limitations, the new limit only applies to conduct that happens after the change occurs.
It’s pretty obvious that the goal was specifically to allow Carroll to sue Trump
No, it is not, and it’s revolting to me that you’d think that. More than 3000 suits were filed in 1 year under the Adult Survivors Act, are all those “happy little accidents”, or do those people mean nothing and you only care about that one case?
Also, you’re omitting the broader context of the ASA: New York’s had a 3 year statute of limitations for civil suits for sexual assault, and they changed it to 20 years.
This was not retroactive, however, so the ASA was passed to allow alleged victims to bring up their cases.
He actually offered to do so, but it was as a part of his single most common legal tactic - delaying. Basically he waited until it was functionally too late, then offered a sample if and only if the pages of the DNA report from the dress that had been held from his lawyers were provided in exchange. The judge refused to let this happen, because it would be opening a new line of inquiry set to make the case take even longer (which was the point).
Had the judge allowed Trump to submit the sample, and had he been allowed to continue to drag every step of that process out to the last minute (which is his standard MO in legal disputes) the election would have happened before the case was resolved and much like him being sentenced to “never mind, we good bro” for his 34 felony convictions this would have been derailed and dismissed, or SCOTUS would have rendered it invalid because our current SCOTUS serves Heritage first, Trump second, and the law in a distant third.
i hate this but he’s been found guilty of sexual assault but specifically not rape afaik… legal shit which isn’t worth correcting unless you add “i’m a court of law” etc
If you’re gonna be picking nits, then at least commit to it.
Trump was found legally liable for sexual assault (and defamation). This is a civil verdict, and it means that the jury found it more likely than not that these things happened. The judge also clarified that the jury’s finding meets the “common, everyday definition of rape”, so while it doesn’t meet the highly specific statutory requirements of New York (which required penile penetration), it is rape.
There was no criminal case, however, and the word “convicted” is specifically used for criminal trials, so it can’t be used here.
The bar is also different: the criminal standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”, while for a civil case it’s “preponderance of evidence” (ie, more likely than not).
I don’t think anyone doubts it happened, but a criminal trial can be gruelling and ultimately lead to nothing. At least she got some vindication, even if it falls short of locking that disgusting scumbag for good.
You might want to look at right wing social media - there’s a whole lot of claims that it didn’t and that she based her story on Law and Order SVU S13 E11 from 2012. Given the circles she traveled in, it’s at least as likely that the SVU episode was inspired by her telling someone connected to the writers the story.
Also, odds are that it’s past statute of limitations, and those exist in large part because memories fade and evidence doesn’t last forever making crimes both more difficult to prove and more difficult to defend against over time.
Her civil case would have already been past statute of limitations, but NY passed a law that created a temporary window where the statute of limitations for civil suits for sexual assault was retroactively revoked. It’s pretty obvious that the goal was specifically to allow Carroll to sue Trump, but it’s written a more broadly than that essentially as plausible deniability. I was actually surprised that NY law didn’t get stopped under the same grounds that retroactively expanding the statute of limitations has been shot down in the past - usually the line the courts will follow is that if you expand a statute of limitations, the new limit only applies to conduct that happens after the change occurs.
No, it is not, and it’s revolting to me that you’d think that. More than 3000 suits were filed in 1 year under the Adult Survivors Act, are all those “happy little accidents”, or do those people mean nothing and you only care about that one case?
Also, you’re omitting the broader context of the ASA: New York’s had a 3 year statute of limitations for civil suits for sexual assault, and they changed it to 20 years.
This was not retroactive, however, so the ASA was passed to allow alleged victims to bring up their cases.
She has a dress with DNA evidence, he refused to submit a sample.
He actually offered to do so, but it was as a part of his single most common legal tactic - delaying. Basically he waited until it was functionally too late, then offered a sample if and only if the pages of the DNA report from the dress that had been held from his lawyers were provided in exchange. The judge refused to let this happen, because it would be opening a new line of inquiry set to make the case take even longer (which was the point).
Had the judge allowed Trump to submit the sample, and had he been allowed to continue to drag every step of that process out to the last minute (which is his standard MO in legal disputes) the election would have happened before the case was resolved and much like him being sentenced to “never mind, we good bro” for his 34 felony convictions this would have been derailed and dismissed, or SCOTUS would have rendered it invalid because our current SCOTUS serves Heritage first, Trump second, and the law in a distant third.
Spoken like a sex pest who has to explain why they have to introduce themselves to the neighbourhood