Drone Attack Kills Soldiers

[TuscaloosaTiger 281]

So Trump was convicted by a jury in NYC for a rape of a woman who over the years has accused ~ 7 guys previously of raping her, including her dentist and a top broadcast network executive.  Presumably Trump's rape of this woman occurred about 30 years ago in some year that the supposed victim could not recall, ostensibly sometime in in the 1990's, in a busy NYC department store dressing room. It is ironic that the presumed victim conveniently decides to bring the case in a presidential election year after all these years have gone by. You can't make this stuff up except possibly for a Law & Order episode, which apparently was one of their past episodes.

[homersapien 11,373]

MAGAs will excuse Trump for crimes in which he "called his shots".

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html

Transcript: Donald Trump’s Taped Comments About Women

[autigeremt 6,617]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

MAGAs will excuse Trump for crimes in which he "called his shots".

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html

Transcript: Donald Trump’s Taped Comments About Women

What does this (typical as it may be) have to do with drone strikes? 

[homersapien 11,373]

18 hours ago, autigeremt said:

What does this (typical as it may be) have to do with drone strikes? 

I was responding to the post immediately preceeding it.  I suppose I should have quoted it to make it obvious.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:00 AM, arein0 said:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

Your link shows that he WASN'T "convicted" of anything. He was found liable.

[homersapien 11,373]

13 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

He wasn't "convicted" of anything. He was found liable. 

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“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 filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.

Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”

“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.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.

The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.

“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”

Kaplan also noted that the verdict form did not ask the jury to decide exactly what conduct Trump had committed, and that neither prosecutors nor Trump’s lawyers had requested it to do so.

“Mr. Trump’s attempt to minimize the sexual abuse finding as perhaps resting on nothing more than groping of Ms. Carroll’s breasts through her clothing is frivolous,” Kaplan wrote.

He added that the jury clearly found that Trump had “ ‘raped’ her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.”

The motion was a part of Trump’s efforts to appeal the verdict against him. That’s an effort that will apparently continue as he faces a separate defamation lawsuit from Carroll, dealing with claims Trump made about her allegations while he was still president.

But for now, Trump’s effort to push back has led to a rather remarkable clarification that severely undercuts his main talking point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

 

 

Would you be making this sort of argument if your mother had been the victim?

Edited February 4 by homersapien

[Son of A Tiger 561]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“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 filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.

Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”

“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.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.

The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.

“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”

Kaplan also noted that the verdict form did not ask the jury to decide exactly what conduct Trump had committed, and that neither prosecutors nor Trump’s lawyers had requested it to do so.

“Mr. Trump’s attempt to minimize the sexual abuse finding as perhaps resting on nothing more than groping of Ms. Carroll’s breasts through her clothing is frivolous,” Kaplan wrote.

He added that the jury clearly found that Trump had “ ‘raped’ her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.”

The motion was a part of Trump’s efforts to appeal the verdict against him. That’s an effort that will apparently continue as he faces a separate defamation lawsuit from Carroll, dealing with claims Trump made about her allegations while he was still president.

But for now, Trump’s effort to push back has led to a rather remarkable clarification that severely undercuts his main talking point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

 

 

 

Thanks for that further clarification that he wasn't convicted of anything, just found liable of sexual abuse.

So now we can get back to the subject of the OP.

Edited February 4 by Son of A Tiger

[arein0 956]

3 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Your link shows that he WASN'T "convicted" of anything. He was found liable.

Okay, I used the wrong word, my bad. It doesn't refute the point I was making. 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

22 hours ago, arein0 said:

Okay, I used the wrong word, my bad. It doesn't refute the point I was making. 

What was your point and how did it relate to the OP subject?

[homersapien 11,373]

On 2/4/2024 at 11:59 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

"...he wasn't convicted of anything, just found liable of sexual abuse."

 

This clearly shows how Trump has debased the once respected Republican party.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

This clearly shows how Trump has debased the once respected Republican party.

 

Republican party was already rotten and debased by 2016. Trump just knew his type of people and fit himself in where he knew he belonged.