Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts in hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, and then falsifying business records to cover that up. But then, this fucking Judge sentenced him to an unconditional discharge (no prison, no fines, no probation) to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land."
I wish he was a convicted sex pest... because in E. Jean Carrols case, a Jury found that Trump sexually abused her. He was held liable but never conviced of sexual abuse, because conviction is a criminal proceeding while this was a civil case. If he would have been convicted of sexual abuse, he would more likely be behind bars, where he fucking belongs.
Is he convicted? Yes.
Is he a sex offender? Yes!
Was he convicted of being a sex offender? No.
Should he be? Yes!!
In the end, I think we should not engage in wrong information, lying is what he does.
Rape is a criminal charges, though, not a civil offense. The adjudication was for sex abuse. He is a rapist in a colloquial understanding of the word given the nature of the sex abuse that he was found liable for meets the definition and criminal requirements of rape. But the adjudication was not for "rape" but for "liability for sex abuse (and defamation)" because a judge cannot adjudicate a crime without a criminal charge and trial, and he hasn't been tried or convicted for sex crimes. Yet.
It's worth noting for the next time this comes up, that the burden of proof is different in civil and criminal cases (balance of probabilities vs. beyond reasonable doubt, your jurisdiction may vary).
Remember OJ? They could convince a jury he probably did it in the civil trial, but the criminal one decided (somehow) that reasonable doubt remained.
Hmm maybe, yes, I just didn't want to go this far into legalities. Preponderance of evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt is (I think) less important when only commenting on what is factual and what is not.
Just to be clear, he was not convicted in court for being a sex offender. He was found civilly liable for sexual assault. Morally and realistically, these are the same thing. But technically and legally they are not. He has never been criminally tried for this sex crimes to date (which is ridiculous). Rather he lost a civil suit by his victim for them. A conviction specifically refers to being found guilty of criminal charges. Again this distinction matter very little EXCEPT in legal matters, but defamation is a legal matter.
Statements of true fact will never lose you a defamation case. Misrepresenting details by mistake should also be defensible in a defamation suit for a public figure as that requires actual malice, not simple negligence, in your language. But it is always better to use the correct language when speaking on such matters to, ideally, avoid the suit in the first place, or at the very least ensure you are in the clear, legally.
That being said, while not a convicted rapist, as rape is criminal offense for which he hasnt been charged, Trump was judged in court to have committed acts of sexual assault that do meet the legal conditions to qualify as rape in a criminal court. So Trump is a rapist, even if not convicted of said crime. Yet.
I think privileging the courts opinion and we should be a lot more cautious about this sort of thing. Courts are political organizations whose purpose is the exercise of power not the search for truth. As suchB courts often lie, and should never be arbiters of truth.
Not this time though. He's totally a pedophile. Maybe the pedophile.
16 replies
Sadly, this is not quite true (hear me out).
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts in hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, and then falsifying business records to cover that up. But then, this fucking Judge sentenced him to an unconditional discharge (no prison, no fines, no probation) to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land."
I wish he was a convicted sex pest... because in E. Jean Carrols case, a Jury found that Trump sexually abused her. He was held liable but never conviced of sexual abuse, because conviction is a criminal proceeding while this was a civil case. If he would have been convicted of sexual abuse, he would more likely be behind bars, where he fucking belongs.
Is he convicted? Yes.
Is he a sex offender? Yes!
Was he convicted of being a sex offender? No.
Should he be? Yes!!
In the end, I think we should not engage in wrong information, lying is what he does.
He's an adjudicated rapist, not a convicted one.
Rape is a criminal charges, though, not a civil offense. The adjudication was for sex abuse. He is a rapist in a colloquial understanding of the word given the nature of the sex abuse that he was found liable for meets the definition and criminal requirements of rape. But the adjudication was not for "rape" but for "liability for sex abuse (and defamation)" because a judge cannot adjudicate a crime without a criminal charge and trial, and he hasn't been tried or convicted for sex crimes. Yet.
It's worth noting for the next time this comes up, that the burden of proof is different in civil and criminal cases (balance of probabilities vs. beyond reasonable doubt, your jurisdiction may vary).
Remember OJ? They could convince a jury he probably did it in the civil trial, but the criminal one decided (somehow) that reasonable doubt remained.
Hmm maybe, yes, I just didn't want to go this far into legalities. Preponderance of evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt is (I think) less important when only commenting on what is factual and what is not.
Legality still not beating the amoral allegations
Just to be clear, he was not convicted in court for being a sex offender. He was found civilly liable for sexual assault. Morally and realistically, these are the same thing. But technically and legally they are not. He has never been criminally tried for this sex crimes to date (which is ridiculous). Rather he lost a civil suit by his victim for them. A conviction specifically refers to being found guilty of criminal charges. Again this distinction matter very little EXCEPT in legal matters, but defamation is a legal matter.
Statements of true fact will never lose you a defamation case. Misrepresenting details by mistake should also be defensible in a defamation suit for a public figure as that requires actual malice, not simple negligence, in your language. But it is always better to use the correct language when speaking on such matters to, ideally, avoid the suit in the first place, or at the very least ensure you are in the clear, legally.
That being said, while not a convicted rapist, as rape is criminal offense for which he hasnt been charged, Trump was judged in court to have committed acts of sexual assault that do meet the legal conditions to qualify as rape in a criminal court. So Trump is a rapist, even if not convicted of said crime. Yet.
He's also a racist and a rapist and a pedophile
and very likely a child trafficker
HAY! Trump is a SERIAL rapist.
Know your presidents.
Adjudicated Serial Rapist
Inmate # P01135809 was booked Thursday, August 24 2023 at the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta, Georgia.
He is still at large and considered dangerous.
Hide your children.
And a complete and utter cunt.
Do you think Brock "the rapist" Allen Turner is a rapist? Similar vibe
If we're going to gripe about word usage, "convicted" shouldn’t be used.
True, in a 2023 civil lawsuit, a federal jury found Trump legally liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.
I think privileging the courts opinion and we should be a lot more cautious about this sort of thing. Courts are political organizations whose purpose is the exercise of power not the search for truth. As suchB courts often lie, and should never be arbiters of truth.
Not this time though. He's totally a pedophile. Maybe the pedophile.