415
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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, Carroll appeared on CNN and indicated Trump had raped her. The jury had not found Trump liable for rape under New York’s definition, but instead found him liable for sexual abuse.

Trump then claimed Carroll’s insistence on CNN amounted to defamation, filing a counterclaim in Carroll’s other lawsuit that has not yet gone to trial.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday dismissed Trump’s argument, ruling Carroll’s statement on the cable network was substantially true and that “[t]here would have been no different effect on the mind of an average listener.”

“The difference between Ms. Carroll’s allegedly defamatory statements — that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as defined in the New York Penal Law — and the ‘truth’ — that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll — is minimal. Both are felonious sex crimes,” Kaplan ruled.

Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, separately rejected Trump’s defense that he has “absolute presidential immunity” in the case.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DrZoidberg@sh.itjust.works 84 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] rbhfd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

How does the state of NY define it? But that seems like very clear cut rape to me.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] nsfw_alt_2023@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago
[-] TubeTalkerX@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Yet the Rubes keep on donating...

[-] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

At some point you’d think people would get sick of it. But the media keeps talking about his bullshit, his supporters still love him, and the rest of us are enjoying the endless losing.

I am however starting to hit a wall with him period.

Someone had an extension that could block him from what you saw on the internet, and I’m starting to think about getting set up.

[-] Bigmodirty@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Glad I don’t live my life in a way where I’d have to shout “defamation” in order to cover up being a giant piece of shit human being.

[-] zcd@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Also not raping people really cuts down on your legal problems

[-] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You’d think so.

[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

A rapist, philanderer, incest enthusiast, fucks porn stars, embezzles funds, multiple bankrupt man is somehow idolized as a paragon of Christianity.

[-] phar@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Wait...did you think Christianity has anything to do with the teachings of Christ? That's silly. You're silly.

[-] autotldr 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday dismissed Trump’s argument, ruling Carroll’s statement on the cable network was substantially true and that “[t]here would have been no different effect on the mind of an average listener.”

Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, separately rejected Trump’s defense that he has “absolute presidential immunity” in the case.

In May, a jury heard one of those cases and found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defaming Carroll last year by denying her story.

“We are pleased that the Court dismissed Donald Trump’s counterclaim,” Carroll attorney Robbie Kaplan, who is not related to the judge, said in a statement.

“That means that the January 15th jury trial will be limited to a narrow set of issues and shouldn’t take very long to complete,” she continued.

Jean Carroll looks forward to obtaining additional compensatory and punitive damages based on the original defamatory statements Donald Trump made in 2019.”


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
415 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
5548 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS