Anonymous #2 7w

"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." SOURCE: The fucking case file.

17

Anonymous OP 7w

Im not defending him, what he did was gross and vile, just like everything else he does and says. I never have read this case file. Im not sure why then the headline was that it was sexual abuse instead of rape, thank you for enlightening me.

-5

Exactly. Let him have someone stick some fingers up his ass unconsensually...

10

Anonymous #2 7w

...if you didn't read the case file then why are you acting like you know what you're talking about?

12

Anonymous OP 7w

I read the headline, since it was RAPE, why wasn’t it on the headline? That’s all I’m saying, just a little misleading.

-4

I never said he wasn’t a rapist, I’m saying he was convicted of sexual assault in this case.

-4

Anonymous #2 7w

Because New York defines rape as unconsensual penile insertion. Fingers and objects are classified as other things depending on the situation.

11

Anonymous #2 7w

Doesn't matter. Still a rapist.

10

Anonymous OP 7w

I understand what you’re saying, but if he was convicted of sexual assault. Then it was sexual assault. Trying to bend the law (even if the law as you stated is as flimsy as fingers vs penis) makes you no better than him. I think that law definitely needs to be changed tho because that’s disgusting.

-6

I've seen two epileptics share a bowl of jello with more grace.

11

Anonymous #2 7w

Stop forming your opinions and determinations based on headlines, dumbfuck.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

It's rape. The judge said it's rape. The jury said it was rape (but didn't check the box bc of the law). It's rape. Stop using semantics to justify what is CLEARLY rape.

6

Anonymous OP 7w

Are you trying to understand where I’m coming from tho? I’m not saying he DIDNT rape her. I’m saying that he wasn’t found GUILTY of it. Personally I think he did rape her! But we can’t just abandon the law, can we? It makes us no better than him.

-2

Anonymous #4 7w

Dog, I’m on your side, I haven’t hurled a single insult. Grow up.

-2

Anonymous #2 7w

Civil trials do not adjudicate guilt nor innocence. They assess liability.

3

Anonymous #2 7w

The law can say what it wants. A rape is a rape.

5

Anonymous #2 7w

Fuck you, moron. Go back to 4chan.

1

Ok, you’re still not understanding me. He did rape her. He did. But as I’ve said, he wasn’t found GUILTY of that. That’s the problem, he definitely should’ve, but he wasn’t.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

I mean liable is pretty god damn close.

7

Anonymous #4 7w

😭 You really need to grow up if you think people use 4Chan still. Let’s keep this debate civil man.

-2

Anonymous #2 7w

Eat shit. Go back to 4chan.

-1

Anonymous #4 7w

You’re goofy lol

0

Anonymous #4 7w

Christ, relax homie

5

Anonymous OP 7w

You’re right. But no one is understanding me when I’m saying that he wasn’t found liable for rape. I’m not saying he didn’t rape her.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Fuck you, too. I have no obligation nor desire to be civil with rape apologists and enablers. If you have a problem with that, you can take a huge bite of shit, too.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

I get what you're saying. But that begins muddying the waters. In the most layman's terms...he raped her. Simple as that. Plus, she only sued her for sexual assault and defamation, not to put him in prison...hence the civil trial.

4

Anonymous OP 7w

She only sued him**

5

Anonymous #4 7w

Bro shut the fuck up. Go bitch somewhere else.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Yes I agree he raped her. And I will go around saying that. But in this specific trial he wasn’t found liable for it, that’s all I’m saying, and it’s fucking stupid that he wasn’t.

-1

Anonymous OP 7w

Go fuck yourself, smoothbrain.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

Well, I'm just saying... every reasonable person on the planet understands that he raped her regardless of the semantics. Sure, he wasn't found liable for that specifically...but come on now lol

3

Anonymous #4 7w

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

0

Anonymous OP 7w

💩 🧠

-1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yes I’m in total agreement with you now, the problem I have was what the verdict was.

1

Anonymous #4 7w

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

1

Anonymous #2 7w

And that's fair. I'm still gonna say he raped her 🤷‍♂️

5

Anonymous OP 7w

💩🧠

-1

Anonymous OP 7w

I will too!

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Thank you for your attention to this matter lol

1

Anonymous #2 7w

😂😂😂😂😂

5

His dumb ass is crashing out. I blocked him lol. Is he still going? 😂

5

Anonymous OP 7w

Not anymore, I hope he took a chill pill

3

Thank fuck. There was an actual civil discussion going on before dick skin lost his shit for some resson

3

Anonymous #2 7w

Rape under most states has to be the act of penetration for legal proceedings, she also sued him in a civil court, not a criminal one, which also changes how rape is used. He did rape her, just not from a legal standpoint.

1