Wrote Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, quoted in "Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll" (WaPo).
Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.” The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
Read the judge's opinion here. Excerpt:
It is not entirely surprising that the jury did not find penile penetration but, as discussed below, implicitly found digital penetration. Ms. Carroll testified about the specific physical memory and excruciating pain of the digital penetration at great length and in greater detail than the penile penetration. She acknowledged that she could not see exactly what Mr. Trump inserted but testified on the basis of what she felt. Dkt 187 (Trial Tr.) at 181:20-23 (“I couldn’t see anything. I couldn’t see anything that was happening. But I could certainly feel it. I could certainly feel that pain in the finger jamming up.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, the jury might have been influenced by defense counsel’s ardent summation in which he virtually begged the jury not to answer the “rape” question against Mr. Trump. Dkt 199 (Trial Tr.) at 1370:5-10 (“To condemn someone as a rapist is a decision you would have to live with for the rest of your lives. Don’t let her throw that burden on you. Don’t let her throw her burden on you to have to carry forever. You know this didn’t happen, that Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman changing room. You know it didn’t happen.”).
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
Opinion by Lewis Carroll.
Rape is with a penis. And that’s the statutory crime in NY. Common NY parlance is not the law. What a joke.
How is rape defined in China? Or by the faculty of Harvard?
Q. Did she say how he penetrated her?
A. Yes. She said with his penis.
Q. What did you say after Ms. Carroll described this to you?
A. As soon as she said that . . . and I said, I whispered, E. Jean, he raped you. .
What was it? His penis or his finger?
When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
If that verdict stands, the only free people in America will be the outlaws. The rest will be slaves of the State.
OK, now let us consider Tara Reade.
It apparently wasn't rape rape
Carroll failed to prove anything. She even failed to prove she was in a Bergdorf Goodman changing room.
She let him finger her in a dressing room & he never called her. that's the revenge.
The judge is of course correct: The standard definition of rape is ‘Penetration no matter how slight of the vagina or anus with any body part or object without the consent of the victim.’ The ‘no matter how slight’ clause anticipates the depredations of short-fingered vulgarians.
the jury effectively found Trump liable for
America responds: Trump guilty of rape? Then why isn't he in jail? Isn't that where the Judicial System is trying to put him?
Apparently he wasn't found guilty, only "effectively liable" for something.
now do Joe Biden and Tara Reade! Of course, THAT'S DIFFERENT!
Serious Question.
In Order to have "raped" someone... Wouldn't there HAVE to be a date/year involved?
When the NYT says "Trump is a rapist" what do they want you to picture?
You know exactly what they want you to picture.
Begley shows his absolute ignorance and callous disregard once again.
But he is a fan of rapist Andrew Tate, so already well practiced in ignoring his heros sex crimes.
The opinion is rife with Kaplan mind-reading what the jury thought or meant - the jury found against Carroll on rape, for example, but Kaplan somehow divines that they really meant that Trump raped her but that the legal definition was too narrow (or something along those lines).
This was a civil defamation case, where the evidentiary standard is lower than for a criminal case. Trump should sue the judge for defamation.
There's more than two tiers.
Here's how it's not like Tara Reade. Reade didn't sue Biden for defamation. Biden's remarks were similar to Trump's, saying it didn't happen, though the tone is milder. He doesn't call her a "liar." He says:
JB: No, it is not true. I am saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn’t. It never happened.... I don’t remember any type of complaint she may have made. It was 27 years ago, and I don’t remember, nor does anyone else that I’m aware of, and the fact is that I don’t remember. I don’t remember any complaint ever having been made.... This never happened, and when she first made the claim, we made it clear that it never happened, and that’s — it’s as simple as that."
A former state senator is a Nebraska lawyer. He's sued some people for writing on Twitter that state Senator Megan Hunt is a groomer and that's allegedly libel per se for saying that someone has committed a crime.
One giant problem. Grooming is not a statutory crime.
Some lawyers and judges abandon the confines of the law in order to get their political enemies.
Legal definitions are no longer defined? That is an interesting way to have free and fair judicial proceedings. If we don’t like the findings of fact, we can then redefine meanings and get the results we wanted all along.
Ann:
Joe also has never talked to Hunter about his business.
False in one; false in all.
In common parlance, Joe Biden raped Tara Reade.
Unwanted digital penetration of a man's finger inside a woman's vagina is most assuredly sexual abuse, at least in Iowa. I prosecuted a number of these cases. If you don't think it's sexual abuse, just ask any woman.
But Trump has such tiny hands….
Here's how it's not like Tara Reade. Reade didn't sue Biden for defamation.
Perhaps because no billionaire was willing to fund her lawsuit.
Biden's remarks were similar to Trump's, saying it didn't happen, though the tone is milder. He doesn't call her a "liar."
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
This is just another example of the absolute moral bankruptcy of the Left and their supporters. This type of pedantry only works with lawyers and true believers.
Once again Althouse bends over backwards to give the Left the benefit of a doubt and the best possible interpretation while denying the same to the Right.
Cruel neutrality indeed.
But actually, now that I think about it, it increases the odds that a woman could be convicted of rape by about 100%
Barack Obama raped me when I was a boy scout. The President-to-be was the only three-month-old counselor employed by the Piedmont Scout Reservation, but I distinctly remember him grabbing me, a new Tenderfoot aged eleven years, from behind...
"Let me show you how to rub two sticks together gah-gah goo-goo," he whispered. I was terrified. I was mortified. I felt his pacifier probing my anus.
Unwanted digital penetration of a man's finger inside a woman's vagina is most assuredly sexual abuse, at least in Iowa. I prosecuted a number of these cases. If you don't think it's sexual abuse, just ask any woman.
Nobody is arguing that it isn't sexual abuse. They're arguing that it didn't happen, and if it did happen it didn't meet the legal definition of rape. If the parties were reversed the media would be supporting this argument.
Legal definitions are no longer defined? That is an interesting way to have free and fair judicial proceedings. If we don’t like the findings of fact, we can then redefine meanings and get the results we wanted all along.
I'm told it has something to do with emanations and penumbras extending from the word "rape".
If you accuse DJT - he is guilty.
He asked about Biden's family corruption - and the corrupt Nazi Left impeached him.
Raped in a high end department store. That could only happen to a Trump-heter.
lonejustice.
But the Trump case was based on NY law. And NY rape law required penetration by a penis; not a finger.
All crimes are statutory and the language has to be strictly construed. No "common parlance" crimes in NY, IA or NE.
So let's see. The jury "effectively" and "implicitly" found Trump liable for a problem in "common parlance" that was different than what a key witness testified, did not have any evidence as to the supposed manner of penetration, and could not be located even in a specific year.
"To some New Yorkers, Bergdorf Goodman is the epitome of luxury, a one-of-a-kind high-fashion mecca.
To the nine New Yorkers on the jury that will decide whether Donald J. Trump raped E. Jean Carroll, Bergdorf’s is where the attack either happened or didn’t happen on a Thursday evening in spring 1996.
Ms. Carroll testified that at the time of the incident, Bergdorf’s was relatively empty. She said that there were no attendants in the lingerie section and that the door to the dressing room where she says the rape happened had been left open to allow her and Mr. Trump in. She also testified that no employees attended to her and Mr. Trump while they were in the store."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/08/nyregion/trump-carroll-rape-trial#two-witnesses-said-bergdorf-goodman-could-be-thinly-populated
No cameras rolling.
No one manning the potential rape posts!
Got that - the store was almost empty - so E- Jean giggled and smiled as she led him into the dressing room. Or it never happened. or.... lots of or or or's....
Where is the video footage?
Where were her SCREAMS for help? ( I can assure you in a dept store - I would scream.)
Notice there is no weapon involved.
Why didn't she call the police?
It's DJT - GUILTY ! GUARDS SEIZE HIM!
Quaestor.. said.
"Carroll failed to prove anything. She even failed to prove she was in a Bergdorf Goodman changing room."
Exactly.
No matter. Trump merely asked about Joe Biden's family corruption. Which is all very real... and being ignored by the leftwing press.
just ask any woman
Better yet, ask your daughter.
Dave Begley: "lonejustice.
But the Trump case was based on NY law. And NY rape law required penetration by a penis; not a finger."
That's LLR lonejustice.
Once you understand that, lonejustice's posts make alot more sense.
You could have a hundred lawyers pointing out the various nuances of both trials and the fact is that the vast majority of ordinary people would agree that this is complete bullshit. All part of a relentless serial vendetta against Trump. To the point that many of us hope that (a) he gets convicted and imprisoned, and (b) that he gets re-elected in 2024 and serves as President from prison.
i'm NOT a lawyer..
the closest i've been to a lawyer were the times i was standing in front of a judge.
BUT! isn't there some sort of legal thingie, about "innocent until Proven guilty"??
Rape is a criminal charge.
As I understood it: you COULD NOT call someone a rapist, 'til they were Convicted of the criminal charge
This "judge" explicitly stated, that Trump committed RAPE. WHEN did he do this? What was the charge?
HOW is this judge Not guilty of defaming Trump? Oh! that's right, it's TRUMP! never mind
conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration —
wait a minute? 'he jury effectively found' Trump committed a Criminal Act? again.. WHEN?
If you look into it, Kaplan is course a leftwing Democrat and Trump hater. It explains why he could say "Trump raped her" was OK, when Carroll couldn't even prove Trump was in the same room with her. She couldn't even say what year she was "raped".
This constant use of the word "rape" to mean practically anything, explains why leftist women are always whining about receiving anonymous "rape threats" on social media or via email. They probably are, since "rape" can now mean anything. "I like your dress" can be a "Rape threat".
What used to be called "rape" is now as Whoopi called it "rape rape".
Newspaper headline or campaign ad, "Federal judge holds that Trump is a rapist. 'Common parlance' test invoked."
Trump will lose the female vote by an even bigger number in 2024. That was the whole point. E. Jean will be named as our ambassador to Great Britian or some other great post.
What a second, the judge is so uncertain of his decision that he feels the need to re-try the case, in the court of public opinion? Rape definitely happened, just don't ask when, because it was over 20 years ago, at least we think it was. By having to reiterate in this setting didn't the judge just reveal his impartiality, his commitment to continue the case outside the courtroom? I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me the case should be vacated on this development.
He was found guilty of civil, not criminal liability for sexual battery and also, I think, unwanted touching, but not rape.
I'm confused by the one-year window to sue for civil liability for these crimes up to 20 years later. Did New York use the definitions of sex crime at the time of the alleged assault or current definitions? In most states, this language has changed over time.
Some states have reduced the emphasis on what is penetrated and what is used for penetration. In many cases, penetration by something other than a penis is far more harmful and can lead to aggravated charges. And happily, we have removed gendered language from most statutes, resulting primarily in males being able to be charged for raping other males but also making it easier to convict women too -- the latter mostly for child molestation or statutory rape of younger men.
Save us from the Judge Humpty Dumptys of the world.
The more crap that comes out about Biden's corrupt dealings in Ukraine, the more stuff they will have to throw at Trump to bleed away the headlines.
Trump will lose the female vote by an even bigger number in 2024.
No, he won't. Biden got 57% of women, which exceeds even Obama's share in either 2008 or 2012. It's unlikely that he'll maintain that advantage next time around, now that COVID is over and Biden has a record which he has to defend. My guess: Biden gets 54% to Trump's 43%.
The standard definition of rape is ‘Penetration no matter how slight of the vagina or anus with any body part or object without the consent of the victim.’
Sigh. No. One is rape, the other is not.
Rape is penile-vaginal penetration, however slight. That's from the common law. Meaning that a man cannot be raped by another man. Ever.
Anal penetration is technically sodomy under the law. For which a man could be a victim. But if a woman, it still would not be rape.
"It is not entirely surprising that the jury did not find penile penetration but, as discussed below, implicitly found digital penetration."
Ahhh! "Implicit rape!" Not "rape rape", but good enough to screw Trump (pun intended).
Thanks, Quaestor.
I used to think Lew Kaplan was a leading lawyer. That was many years ago. It sounds as if he's really lost it.
Why would any judge try to supplement or "clarify" the original ruling with this kind of casual second-guessing? It's like trying to polish a turd.
This is a New York judge and jury. It will be reversed on appeal. The Lawfare is so obvious that anyone not insane with TDS can see it.
He doesn't call her a "liar."
When you find yourself parsing technical distinctions to determine where and how to focus the government's powers to deprive you of liberty, you've lost the moral thread of justice.
Blogger lonejustice said...
Unwanted digital penetration of a man's finger inside a woman's vagina is most assuredly sexual abuse, at least in Iowa.
Is anyone saying that it is not? I suspect that it is illegal under NY law as well. But it is not, apparently, "rape" under NY law.
Nor, in a quick search, under Iowa law either. "Rape", as a legal term, does not seem to be illegal under Iowa law.
"709.1 Sexual abuse defined".(I may not be searching correctly so correction welcome.)
John Henry
Mark, I think you are wrong about requiring penile-vaginal penetration to be rape. In NY at least
NY State has 3 degrees of rape. 2nd and 3rd degree are based on age and ability to consent so are more like statutory rape.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more.
Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.
So it covers any "sexual intercourse" which is defined as
S 130.00 Sex offenses; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Sexual intercourse" has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.
So perhaps the judge is right IF DJT penetrated this woman with his finger, it might be "rape" under NY State law.
But I don't think anyone found that, did they? According to the judge they "implicitly found digital penetration" the word implicitly seems to deny that they actually found that.
The whole thing seems more and more bogus every day.
John Henry
The judge sure spent a lot of time to get to a result he could have justified by saying: “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict there was sufficient evidence to support the damages awarded.”
So, it wasn't "rape rape."
It was "rape rape rape."
Do I have this correctly?
I'm leaving open the possibility it was "rape rape rape rape."
While his short orange fingers are small compared to the average man’s, they’re enormous compared to his tiny orange member.
Already nine comments by everyone's favorite quack attorney "please like me Ann" Dave Begley. Something about penises and fingers being inserted by force into a non-consenting vagina must really really excite him.
If we were discussing Joe Biden’s digital rape of Tara Reade I suspect everyone here would instantly be onboard with the judge’s reasoning.
"But he is a fan of rapist Andrew Tate, so already well practiced in ignoring his heros (sic) sex crimes."
Andrew Tate has not been convicted, which renders your attempted use of ad hominem impotent.
"I felt his pacifier probing my anus."
I was also at that camp and he did that to me too! I never told anyone this before. Glad I finally have; it feels good to share my story after all these years.
"Blogger jim5301 said...
Already nine comments by everyone's favorite quack attorney "please like me Ann" Dave Begley. Something about penises and fingers being inserted by force into a non-consenting vagina must really really excite him."
Does an have an ad hominem tag?
"Blogger jim5301 said...
Already nine comments by everyone's favorite quack attorney "please like me Ann" Dave Begley. Something about penises and fingers being inserted by force into a non-consenting vagina must really really excite him."
Does Ann have an ad hominem tag?
jim5301:
The point of my comments is that this federal judge completely abandoned the rule of law and NY criminal law. He will be reversed on this point. Every crime in America is statutory. There's no such thing as a "common parlance" crime. We don't charge people in the US for hooliganism.
Others here have agree with me even before they read my comments.
I'm a rule of law guy. That's it.
When you consider the overwhelming evidence against Donald Trump and the earlier case of Justice Kavanaugh versus all those distortions and lies the Republicans tell about Hunter Biden, then the bias becomes apparent. There are many innocent explanations for why a forward leaning progressive with feminist sympathies might want to snort coke with some prostitutes. The Republicans never delve into these explanations and jump to base conclusions. This is especially damaging when you see the incredible case and all that documented evidence that Ms. Carroll presented against Donald Trump. The prejudices of the Republicans has never been more manifest
And, BTW, a severe due process constitutional law violation to allow civil cases to be filed decades after the event. For that reason alone, the case will be reversed. But the damage will have been done. Trump will lose the general. That's what the Dems wanted.
All the dithering and rhetorical nitpicking aside, Trump is confirmed by jury verdict a repulsive cockroach of a man. (A fact starkly evident with his every public appearance and utterance.)
E. Jean Carroll needs to be waterboarded to establish ground truth.
Mark, I think you are wrong about requiring penile-vaginal penetration to be rape. In NY at least
NY State has 3 degrees of rape
That's why this judge has some cover to say what he said, because of the changing definitions of what rape is. But whatever statutory revisions may say, however much confusion they may cause, the common law definition has always been penile-vaginal penetration.
Hey, jim5301. I've written two NE S. Ct. briefs in two months. One as appellee and one as appellant. I'll let you know how this quack lawyer does.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
While his short orange fingers are small compared to the average man’s, they’re enormous compared to his tiny orange member.
I take it that this is by personal observation?
As I read the opinion, in the view of the judge the definition of rape under New York law does not apply when that New York definition would be favorable to Trump, but the colloquial definition of rape does apply when that colloquial definition is unfavorable to Trump.
Justice without fear or favor!
Can someone tell me what evidence there was that he fingered her besides her word and the testimony of people she told about it in the 90s?
Mark, definitions differ wildly between states. "Rape" is most commonly used for forced vaginal intercourse, and "sexual assault" is usually for using non-genital objects. Some states have cleaned up their older sodomy law sections; others added aggravated sodomy; left ordinary sodomy restrictions on the books, but don't enforce the latter. And child sex abuse sometimes makes different distinctions.
Decisions are made based on what's politically possible. In some conservative states, it's easier to leave consensual sodomy un-enforced but on the books and just add new definitions of forced sodomy.
New York's current law is pretty complex. I don't know what it was 20 years ago. One has to wonder how much of that "one year exception of the statute of limitations for 20 year old civil cases" was crafted exclusively to try Trump. It certainly colors the entire process.
Good thing for Ted Kennedy that he's dead.
And again, the idea that someone as famous as Donald Trump could just saunter into a high-end department store and rape somebody - without anybody knowing - is bullshit on stilts.
And the fact so many people actually believe it - including a court - reveals just how fucked up some people are.
I want nothing to do with them.
Now we'll see how much more he'll be ordered to to pay on in her earlier-filed but still pending case.
Didn't happen, simple as.
Magic opinion, magic passport, magic soil... cargo cult of leftism doesn't actually rewrite the fabric of truth and reality in real time.
Hey Dave Begley;
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this page. You were up early, Central Time, typing this one:
Dave Begley said...
A former state senator is a Nebraska lawyer. He's sued some people for writing on Twitter that state Senator Megan Hunt is a groomer and that's allegedly libel per se for saying that someone has committed a crime.
One giant problem. Grooming is not a statutory crime.
Some lawyers and judges abandon the confines of the law in order to get their political enemies.
7/20/23, 8:24 AM
We had one of those kerfuffles in Michigan. It made national news. Pretty much every network featured it, and Esquire wrote it up.
My reaction was the thing that neither one of us ever learned in law school; "there oughtta be a law." Michigan state senator Lana Theis has done and said plenty of stupid and shitty things, but this one was one of the most singularly stupid and shitty. There wasn't a cause of action against Senator Theis, which I consider a pure failing in the law. Lana Theis is one of those people like so many Republicans that I expect you know in Nebraska, Dave. She wasn't thrilled about Trump in 2016, but afterward she got fully on the MAGA train. And then she learned that there weren't too many downsides about being Super-MAGA. She has learned to channel all sorts of low grade culture war shit like "parental choice" in education. She's become a top-flight culture warrior in Michigan. And now, she's pretty cautious about Trumpism; like you are, Dave. She's worried about Trump losing to Biden in 2024 like Trump lost to Biden in 2020. Something that she knows very well, but can't ever admit in public.
I look at people like Michigan State Senator Lana Theis, groomer-accuser, with cold contempt. Weak, soulless, and utterly lacking in morals or principles. She'd be anti-MAGA or super-MAGA, depending on what her electorate required.
I'm curious what your thoughts might be on this, Dave. (Please do read the Esquire link.)
LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist: "She [a MI republican politician] has learned to channel all sorts of low grade culture war shit like "parental choice" in education."
LOL
The posts where LLR-democratical Chuck forgets that he is supposed to at least pay lip service to being a "republican" and he lets his far left Freak Flag fly are by far the best threads!
Keep in mind that this was a civil trial. That means that the verdict was by a preponderance of the evidence. The standard for a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. Proving that Trump would have violated the NY civil code for rape, if the verdict had been beyond a reasonable doubt proves nothing about whether it was, since that wasn’t the standard the fact finder faced. That’s why criminal verdicts can be used in civil trials, but typically not the other way around.
The idea that the judge even referenced the NY criminal code is ludicrous - in defamation, te common law definition of the crime is probably more relevant, since that is what the public understands. And digital penetration probably doesn’t count as rape in the minds of much of the public.
Don't engage him, Dave. Who, BTW is a real lawyer.
Can someone tell me what evidence there was that he fingered her besides her word and the testimony of people she told about it in the 90s?
Even the evidence that she told them in the 90’s is hearsay. These are her friends from then to now, and their behaviors are bordering on psychotic. It isn’t beyond reasonable doubt in my mind they colluded to make up these allegations.
I suspect it was all a hoax. Put bluntly, I believe these women to be lying.
Dave Begley makes a lot of sense. I'd hire him for a lawyer. I'd also fire that judge. It's perfectly understandable that most people don't know the grimmer distinctions of sex assault law, but it's unacceptable for judges and journalists to be so cavalier with their language, especially judges issuing statements.
@Tim, agreed. Women lie, and feminists lie as an automatic reflex.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा