He raped her. No doubt. But as far as the state is concerned, he didn’t because it has never been criminally adjudicated. The judge can say that he did, but that doesn’t make it a criminal conviction. He was civilly liable for the rape. Saying he’s convicted is factually inaccurate.
Same thing with OJ Simpson. He was found civilly liable for those murders, but not criminally guilty. Pretty much everyone agrees that he murdered those people, but he’s not in prison right now because he wasn’t found guilty.
In the same vain, Trump has not been found guilty of rape.
All of this doesn’t mean that Trump didn’t rape that woman in actuality. It just means that he wasn’t convicted. And telling people he was convicted is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.
Ok, so here’s me being “disingenuous, at best”: “He raped her. No doubt.” If he did what he did to E. Jean Carroll in actuality, instead to your daughter, wife, mother, grandmother, how would you feel?
I’d be upset, but my emotions on the matter don’t change the fact that he wasn’t criminally convicted. You can say he raped her, which he did. You can’t say (honestly) he was convicted because that means something entirely different. Are you being purposefully obtuse about my point, here?
Perhaps disingenuous. I told you I was a terrible debater. My point is that Judge Kaplan said the difference was semantic, between the terms. It was a civil case, of course he wasn’t criminally convicted. This is the one case where it came to a conclusion. Are you being obtuse about how difficult it is for a woman to bring a case of rape against her to trial, especially against someone who is powerful, wealthy, and male? I mean, what’s in this conversation for you? Why do you care?
I just believe if you can’t make Trump look bad without having to make factually inaccurate statements, that’s a problem. He’s shit enough, you can make your point while still being accurate. Words have meanings, especially in legal matters. And this is all in regards to legal distinction.
Way back at the original comment, the guy could have made his point by calling Trump a rapist. No one here would have had a problem with that. Even a “proven” rapist would have got a pass because he was found to have raped someone. But he used the word “convicted” which means something different. If he had used the word “murderer” that would have been wrong too. Would correcting that make us trolls? No, we just want you to make your point without undermining your own argument.
And yes, even when condemning an undeniable villain like Trump, you undermine your own credibility if you make stuff up to do it.
He raped her. No doubt. But as far as the state is concerned, he didn’t because it has never been criminally adjudicated. The judge can say that he did, but that doesn’t make it a criminal conviction. He was civilly liable for the rape. Saying he’s convicted is factually inaccurate.
Same thing with OJ Simpson. He was found civilly liable for those murders, but not criminally guilty. Pretty much everyone agrees that he murdered those people, but he’s not in prison right now because he wasn’t found guilty.
In the same vain, Trump has not been found guilty of rape.
All of this doesn’t mean that Trump didn’t rape that woman in actuality. It just means that he wasn’t convicted. And telling people he was convicted is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.
Ok, so here’s me being “disingenuous, at best”: “He raped her. No doubt.” If he did what he did to E. Jean Carroll in actuality, instead to your daughter, wife, mother, grandmother, how would you feel?
I’d be upset, but my emotions on the matter don’t change the fact that he wasn’t criminally convicted. You can say he raped her, which he did. You can’t say (honestly) he was convicted because that means something entirely different. Are you being purposefully obtuse about my point, here?
Perhaps disingenuous. I told you I was a terrible debater. My point is that Judge Kaplan said the difference was semantic, between the terms. It was a civil case, of course he wasn’t criminally convicted. This is the one case where it came to a conclusion. Are you being obtuse about how difficult it is for a woman to bring a case of rape against her to trial, especially against someone who is powerful, wealthy, and male? I mean, what’s in this conversation for you? Why do you care?
The other people in this thread are arguing semantics - whether he is “guilty” or not. They may be correct.
Thing is, they’re still trying to split hairs about a man who raped someone to make sure he gets the benefit of … semantics or something.
No. We are trying to be accurate. If you want to say Trump raped her or that he is guilty of rape, there’s no argument from us.
The claim was that he was convicted of rape. He was not. It’s that simple.
@andyburke
@style99 @AmidFuror @wagesj45 @ForestOrca
It’s what Trolls do in order to misdirect the energy in a discussion. Don’t feed 'em.
I just believe if you can’t make Trump look bad without having to make factually inaccurate statements, that’s a problem. He’s shit enough, you can make your point while still being accurate. Words have meanings, especially in legal matters. And this is all in regards to legal distinction.
Way back at the original comment, the guy could have made his point by calling Trump a rapist. No one here would have had a problem with that. Even a “proven” rapist would have got a pass because he was found to have raped someone. But he used the word “convicted” which means something different. If he had used the word “murderer” that would have been wrong too. Would correcting that make us trolls? No, we just want you to make your point without undermining your own argument.
And yes, even when condemning an undeniable villain like Trump, you undermine your own credibility if you make stuff up to do it.