He’s kind of been found to be a rapist in a court of law. Trump sued a woman for defamation over a rape claim and the jury listened to testimony and evidence and found that he had forcibly penetrated her. So not criminal trial, but there was a trial and a determination by a jury.
After a nine-day trial, the jury deliberated for under three hours before returning a verdict on May 9, 2023. They found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her. The jury did not find that Carroll had proven “rape” as defined under the New York Penal Law, which requires penile penetration. The total award was $5 million: $2 million in compensatory damages for the sexual abuse, $2.7 million in compensatory damages for defamation, and $280,000 in punitive damages for defamation.
Judge Kaplan later clarified what the “not rape” finding actually meant. In denying Trump’s motion for a new trial, Kaplan wrote that the jury had “implicitly found that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers” — conduct that most people would understand as rape, even though it fell outside the narrow New York criminal statute requiring penile penetration.
You seem to be taken in by the idea that all unproven claims should be treated equally until tried in a court of law. But it’s totally ok to judge people on your own based on their personality, history, and the circumstances of the accusation. We’re not deciding whether they’ll spend their lives in prison, we’re judging their character for an elected position. Trump isn’t just one accusation from Carroll, he’s his whole life of womanizing and misogyny and proudly violating boundaries of young women. He’s outright bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. Sometimes you just have to make an educated guess and be willing to be wrong.
So not criminal trial, but there was a trial and a determination by a jury.
I know about the law suit but I thought the burden of proof was pretty different?
You seem to be taken in by the idea that all unproven claims should be treated equally until tried in a court of law.
No, that’s not my thinking. I’m trying to understand why accusations are treated differently for different people and, if done by people in support of a political party, does this cause fractions within the party?
I know if there was an election happening where I live and the leadership and members of a political party called women coming forward with accusations a liar, I would wonder how safe I would be to report problematic behavior if it happens to me?
Do you just not believe someone would ever lie? Or that some accusations could be more credible than others?
Platner’s first accuser was an actual Republican operative. A party that has happily embraced lying for political benefit. No one should trust a word she says about anything. Don’t join the liars party as an active operative and then expect people to trust your word.
Accusations are treated differently for different people because they’re different. That’s just life. You make decisions based on available information without being certain.
I am doing a really bad job at making my point. Maybe I need to go back a few steps.
I don’t know why a political party would support a candidate if there was a possibility the party would have to decide how to handle a scandal.
There is no perfect response to this. No matter what the response is, some voters will disagree. There will be arguments among party members which will take up space instead of organizing for the election.
It’s a distraction. I don’t mean the accusations are a distraction. I mean not immediately dropping the candidate and telling him to handle this and come back next time is a distraction. They don’t have to attack him or attach any comment about if they believe the accusations. They can just be like, “We decided that the candidate has some other matters to attend to and can’t give his candidacy his full attention.”
The fact that this isn’t the first scandal and they just kept going is so confusing to me. I don’t know the timeline but I guess if they literally can’t kick him out if the party that makes the above impossible. In that case “blue no matter who” makes even less sense to me.
Primary voters judged the other scandals not credible or irrelevant. I think he could probably still win even with this.
The problem with delegating ongoing approval to party officials is that they have their own political motivations that don’t necessarily align with the voters. The party is too big to have a well defined platform so voters could trust they’re working toward shared goals. They’d likely want to replace Platner regardless.
He’s kind of been found to be a rapist in a court of law. Trump sued a woman for defamation over a rape claim and the jury listened to testimony and evidence and found that he had forcibly penetrated her. So not criminal trial, but there was a trial and a determination by a jury.
https://legalclarity.org/trump-rape-lawsuit-e-jean-carrolls-trials-and-verdicts/
You seem to be taken in by the idea that all unproven claims should be treated equally until tried in a court of law. But it’s totally ok to judge people on your own based on their personality, history, and the circumstances of the accusation. We’re not deciding whether they’ll spend their lives in prison, we’re judging their character for an elected position. Trump isn’t just one accusation from Carroll, he’s his whole life of womanizing and misogyny and proudly violating boundaries of young women. He’s outright bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. Sometimes you just have to make an educated guess and be willing to be wrong.
I know about the law suit but I thought the burden of proof was pretty different?
No, that’s not my thinking. I’m trying to understand why accusations are treated differently for different people and, if done by people in support of a political party, does this cause fractions within the party?
I know if there was an election happening where I live and the leadership and members of a political party called women coming forward with accusations a liar, I would wonder how safe I would be to report problematic behavior if it happens to me?
Do you just not believe someone would ever lie? Or that some accusations could be more credible than others?
Platner’s first accuser was an actual Republican operative. A party that has happily embraced lying for political benefit. No one should trust a word she says about anything. Don’t join the liars party as an active operative and then expect people to trust your word.
Accusations are treated differently for different people because they’re different. That’s just life. You make decisions based on available information without being certain.
I am doing a really bad job at making my point. Maybe I need to go back a few steps.
I don’t know why a political party would support a candidate if there was a possibility the party would have to decide how to handle a scandal.
There is no perfect response to this. No matter what the response is, some voters will disagree. There will be arguments among party members which will take up space instead of organizing for the election.
It’s a distraction. I don’t mean the accusations are a distraction. I mean not immediately dropping the candidate and telling him to handle this and come back next time is a distraction. They don’t have to attack him or attach any comment about if they believe the accusations. They can just be like, “We decided that the candidate has some other matters to attend to and can’t give his candidacy his full attention.”
The fact that this isn’t the first scandal and they just kept going is so confusing to me. I don’t know the timeline but I guess if they literally can’t kick him out if the party that makes the above impossible. In that case “blue no matter who” makes even less sense to me.
Primary voters judged the other scandals not credible or irrelevant. I think he could probably still win even with this.
The problem with delegating ongoing approval to party officials is that they have their own political motivations that don’t necessarily align with the voters. The party is too big to have a well defined platform so voters could trust they’re working toward shared goals. They’d likely want to replace Platner regardless.