Are you insinuating that Trump has or are you just throwing the (quite serious) rape word around for no reason?
It's a statement of fact from Judge Lewis Kaplan. Do you still support a rapist?
>>>...After more than three years of shenanigans from Trump and his lawyers, this motion appears to have landed very badly with Judge Lewis Kaplan.
“Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument,” he
wrote, adding that “Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of ‘rape’ to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.”
Judge Kaplan not only rejected the motion for new trial, he took the occasion to recap all the incredibly damaging testimony and point out that Trump presented absolutely no defense when he had the chance, but instead seeks to undo the jury verdict by eliding the difference between the colloquial definition of “rape,” and that of New York’s law.
“The definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of ‘rape’ in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere,” the court noted, citing dictionaries and other jurisdictions’ laws defining “rape” as non-consensual penetration of any kind. “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.’ Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.” ...<<<
A+ lawyering there!
abovethelaw.com
And repeated by the same judge in a new ruling:
>>>...The court ruled that this statement could not be defamatory because it was substantially true because the jury found that Trump
did rape her, albeit not within the narrow terms of the statute:
Indeed, the jury’s verdict in Carroll I establishes, as against Mr. Trump, the fact that Mr. Trump “raped” her, albeit digitally rather than with his penis. Thus, it establishes against him the substantial truth of Ms. Carroll’s “rape” accusations. In any case, the Carroll II jury’s Penal Law rape finding does not even establish, as against Ms. Carroll, Mr. Trump’s contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis, i.e., that he did not rape her within the meaning of the Penal Law.
...
<<<
A+ lawyering there!
abovethelaw.com
