Trump is threatening to crap on another lawyer's career

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

My apologies for introducing you to some uncomfortable facts.

 

that judge ignored what the jury found and his own state laws. He's a clown. and hopefully he will be removed from office as he should be

 

You can support or oppose whatever policies you like or dislike.

if you want to compare, at least 22 of Trump's lawyers have been sanctioned or disbarred, most officials who served under him refusing to endorse the established sexual abuser and business fraud facing 91 criminal counts. The President has none in each category.

 

Your opinion and the actual court ruling are both taken for what they are worth.

 

Well, I see I did indeed make you feel uncomfortable. The facts can do that when they are incongruent with the fatuous Trumpian narrative you have been fed.

I submit this for your review.

The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf

At this point I need to ask, is the technical distinction between rape and sexual abuse in NY reason enough to support Don for prez?

 

I worry about the judges and justices that the respective administrations choose

Biden picks judges based first on gender and ethnicity

They tend to be socialists/progressives/marxists

I oppose that

 

I am laughing at your sense of triumph. Tell me, what state are you licensed to practice law in and how many criminal trials have you won? The fact is, you are unable to understand the difference between a criminal finding of guilt and a CIVIL finding of liability.

 

as is your obvious paucity of legal expertise

 

Yeah because giving legal advice to Trump pisses of leftist. These are all little more than denial of service attacks with little more than fear and petty malice behind them.

 

Yes, I know enough to defer to the American justice system, the right to defend oneself in court and to be judged by a jury of one's peers.

While no system is flawless, I know on none that is better.

 

You are incorrect. I know the difference. I am licensed to practice law in zero states. But I'm sure Judge Kaplan is licensed in NY and I defer to his correct observation that the NY statute makes a distinction between rape and sexual abuse not recognized by the public's common understanding of rape. If you stick a digit connected to your hand in the unwelcoming vajayjay of the person you are assaulting that's rape, bro.

At this point I need to ask, is the technical distinction between rape and sexual abuse in NY reason enough to support Don for prez?

 

When did the President ever indicate that he chose judges based upon gender and ethnicity?

Are you parroting something you were told by someone who habitually pisses and moans about the President?

 

I am wary of those who reject America's certified democratic elections and its judicial system.

They tend to embrace Russian propaganda.

E.g., Alexander Smirnov was supposed to be a key witness according to goober James Comer who hyped Putin's operative's fake claim about a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving the President and his family until it was exposed,

The caper has, of course, collapsed.

 

Right as he took office... lol

President Joe Biden entered the White House two years ago this month, bringing with him a promise to help diversify the nation’s highest court by nominating a Black woman.

He fulfilled that commitment in June when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The judge was found to be qualified by the Senate.

America's diversity being reflected in the court is a good thing.

 

Now you know that Biden indeed did select the judge based on skin color and gender. I don't care whether you like it or not. You'll like anything done by a democrat.

 

You may still believe that the Supreme Court should be comprised of all White men.

That was the plight if the nation for 178 years.

Thurgood Marshall was appointed in 1967, and Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981.

Qualified justices can bring a needed perspective to the Court.

 

Its a difference that makes no difference.

 

He did not crap on any of them.

 

Russian propaganda and that coming from the mouth of Individual 1, some Repub congressmen, and RWM essentially being indistinguishable.

 

not to those who are unlearned about the law and are unable to understand the constitution.

 

those who ignore the constitution are not qualified no matter what quota boxes they fill

 

Nope, to those who know the difference between guilty and innocent.

 

He's a clinton appointee and he knows damn well that Trump was not convicted of anything.

 

well that excludes you because Trump was not found GUILTY of anything.