Knowing conservatives, they plan to debase the word “rapist” to where it has no meaning like they did with “woke” and are trying to do with “nazi.”
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
144 points (93.9% liked)
politics
24800 readers
3095 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
...
“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
So, yeah, let's get those lawsuits filed so we can start the discovery process. That should be fun.
The defendant can subpeona all kinds of uncomfortable stuff. Everything they fail to produce can be leveraged. It'll be great!
Would be a great lawsuit. Just subooena E. jean Caroll to testify that he raped her, then Donald would scream shit about her and she could sue him again for more millions.
This sounds like a dark episode of Jerry Spiringer
Statutory rape is rape, too. If the fat fuck sues, Epstein's list is relevant discoverable evidence to AOC's truth defense. I will call that fat fuck a rapist every day until he sues, so that I can serve discovery on his stupid ass.
Wow, who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?
Doesn't seem like she directly named Trump, so I would think she's legally in the clear. But I'm not a lawyer.
She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist. It’s only slander/liable if the claims are untrue.
This isn’t about winning the case, they just want to force her to spend a gigantic amount of money on a legal defense that will drag on for years and which Trump can use to smear AOC.
This isn’t about winning the case,
he doesn't have one. if he was never in office, never ran for office, never was on tv, never was the 'face' of an 'international brand', and never was a public figure..perhaps. but the bar for him because he is those things is extraordinary high, and this ain't even close.
She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist.
I only wish this were true. Remember that CBS just got finished paying out a multimillion dollar settlement and forced one of their own reporters to apologize for merely reporting that Trump was found liable for rape. Now, granted, there was all sorts of shady stuff going on behind the scenes as CBS was trying to preserve (and was ultimately successful in preserving) a merger.
But as we all know, all victories like that do is embolden Trump further. Especially in an environment where he's essentially stacked the courts with his own cronies and can easily judge-shop until he gets what he wants topped off by a Supreme Court system hellbent on anointing Trump king. We've seen courts reach back to medieval times and ancient countries to find justifications for their pro-Trump rulings, and I could easily see a judge ruling in Trump's favor not because of the merits of the case but simply because Trump.
Let's be realistic, it wouldn't even be the first time.
EDIT: To answer everybody's replies. Yes, I know it was a bribe. But Trump was ultimately successful in his goal of getting CBS to pay out and to force Stephanopoulos to apologize for simply reporting facts as written in the court record. To Trump, why he was successful doesn't matter. All that matters is that he was successful. And when he's successful, he uses that tactic again, and again, and again. He gets one country to bow to his will on trade, and suddenly he's flinging tariffs everywhere. He got one college to bend the knee, and started an attack on universities. He got one corporation to back down, and has been attacking the press since. It's what he does. He was successful with CBS, and is much more likely to use the same tactic on her. He has no legal basis to stand on in 99% of these cases, but he does it anyway because he knows that in the end, the Supreme Court is likely to back him up simply because he's Trump.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Yes, his case against her would be baseless. But in this political environment, against this person, in this court system that ultimately leads to this Supreme Court, the fact that it's baseless doesn't matter. He has a very real chance of getting his way not based on the merits or the law, but simply because he's Trump and the courts have decided for some reason that he gets to play by a different set of rules.
CBS settled because a corrupt Trump administration could have cost them far more through acts of revenge. Settling was the cost of doing business. AOC doesn’t have any business interests a hostile, weaponised government could harm, so unless the legal system has been corrupted to the point where the government could charge her with libel (or treason or terrorism or anything else; at this point, there is no longer meaning, only power) because they say so, she has a solid defence.
AOC isn’t currently trying to get the FTC to approve of a multi billion dollar media conglomerate merger. Had that not been the case, CBS could have easily won against Trump. They also didn’t actually admit legal culpability. It was just a $16 million shakedown, and everyone knows it was total bullshit.
AOC doesn’t have that kind of liability. Of course, she would have more difficulty in paying lawyers fees, for a legal case that would likely drag out for years.
I mean, she doesn't have to last too many years, she only needs to last long enough for either the fascists to be voted out or for her to arrested by said fascists as a political enemy.
GoFundMe is a thing, and there are millions of people that would willingly donate to her legal defense fund.
CBS's settlement was a bribe, nothing more and nothing less.
that statement could certainly be seen as being about any number of potential rapists in the government. it’s telling that trump is jumping in front of that statement.
I mean she isn't wrong.
Yeah, she should've called him a pedophile
Trump didn't "win" his case against ABC. They settled, despite the fact that the judge who presided over Trump's rape case acknowledging that Trump did in fact, "rape" E. Jean Carroll. That's just not the legalese term used in the charges against him.
His lawyers also argued in a civil suit from his ex-wife Ivana in court that "You cannot rape your spouse" as his defense for rape allegations...
Sue her? For what?
upsetting widdle babby conservative feelings. they're the most fragile people alive
Oh sure go right ahead, Streisand the shit outta you being an adjuicated sex offender that is all but certainly on that fucking LIST
Adjudicated rapist wants to sue for being called a rapist.
I really love her
For those who missed it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll
“The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.
“The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.
"It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”
So the only reason he wasn't convicted on the rape charge is that his dick is so small they couldn't definitively prove it was his penis.
"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."
Trump is a pedo...
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
Prove it isn’t true.
Let’s go to discovery.
Exactly. She knows she can say this because he can't prove it's untrue and any attempt to sue would only reveal more evidence that she's correct.
I hate this country so fucking much.
Uh, what?
The judge specifically said it was rape, didn't they?
Lol, sue her for what?
lol that’s going nowhere.
oh, excuuuuuse me, sexual assault
