And are there any still-fashionable, if antiquated, garments that Kaitlan Collins could wear to protect herself from … Him?
Admittedly I don’t know what evidence was presented but given Trump’s flat denial that the event happened at all, it seems strange to credit that a sexual assault of some kind occurred but not find it was rape. I’m presuming that she didn’t testify anything ambiguous about the elements of rape. So the jury decided they believed it happened, but part of what she said wasn’t true. Juries are weird.
If the jury had skipped the Chinese lunch that had been ordered in for them then they would have been guilty of wonton disregard…
I just made a late edit to my post above. To be perfectly blunt, for clarity, rape in this case means inserting penis into the vagina. An assault (in this case called abuse), is likely unwanted sexual contact - that can include a lot of bad stuff, just not “rape” as defined in this case.
So far clarity purposes (my quick take)…
battery - unwanted touching. e.g., I touched your ear without your consent.
abuse/sexual assault - unwanted sexual contact. e.g., I touch your breast or vagina without your consent.
rape - unwanted sexual intercourse. e.g., having sex.
Should be said twice at least.
My understanding is that Carroll testified she was unable to tell if Trump actually penetrated her with his penis. She felt his fingers penetrate her, but was unable to see if penile penetration occurred. The jury may have believed she was less “raped” because she couldn’t say for certain about his dick.
He could wear an old-fashioned chastity belt.
(Ok, ok, enough jokes!)
A serious question: if Trump continues to state that Carroll is lying, that he never assaulted anyone, etc. can she sue him again? Or does this verdict give him a pass to defame her at will in the future?
I find it interesting that there was a poll just a day or so ago showing that Trump was ahead of Biden if the election were to happen now.
I wonder how this trial would affect that? Or if it would?
How sad is it that there is even a question?
Truly, it turns my stomach.
Sure. New tort, covering his defamatory words and actions from this point forward (after the verdict from the prior case).
Sure. What I’m saying is they had two accounts before them, and one of them (Trump’s) was that nothing at all happened. They found something had happened, but not what Carroll said. If they credited Carroll’s account that there was unwanted sexual contact in the first place, why not her account of what that contact was? But Aspenglow provided a very reasonable answer. I hadn’t known what her testimony was as to rape.
It’s possible that the jury felt that Trump’s tiny mushroom shaped tackle could not have performed actual penetration.
You don’t get to rob another bank if you were found guilty of robbing a bank last year.
This says a lot about TFG’s much bragged-about “endowment”. I hope the late night comedy shows make hay with this.
I am starting to see the spin from this already.
“Court proves I didn’t rape the woman who accused me of rape, full legal exoneration.”
If only. All the late-night shows are off because of the writers’ strike.
Except of course for Greg Gutfield, who of course does not use union writers.
Got it. I didn’t see that before I posted. That testimony seems to help clearly understand why this jury, based on the NY definition of the terms, could find there was abuse but no rape.
Of course not, but I was trying to figure how he manages to keep his trap shut. I don’t think it’s physically possible, so isn’t he bound by his nature to keep defaming her, and for her to keep suing him?
I’m fantasizing that at some point, a judge will just order Trump to wear a Hannibal Lecter - type mask at all times. Or maybe duct tape.