Judge in Carroll Case Says Trump ‘Raped’ Her, Though Jury Disagreed

Breitbart ^ | 07/25/2023 | JOEL B. POLLAK

[ChicagoConservative27]

U.S. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan says that former President Donald J. Trump may be said to have “raped” E. Jean Carroll, even though a jury specifically declined to find that he had done so in his recent civil trial in New York.

Aaron Blake of the Washington Post reported the judge’s finding — approvingly, calling it a “clarification”:

[Kaplan] says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.

…

“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

The jury found that Trump had not raped Carroll, but found him liable for sexual abuse and battery, based on claims about an encounter in a department store dressing room, though Carroll could not remember the year

[stylin19a]

“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

that has to be worth a reversal...

[eyeamok]

Sounds like enough BIAS by the Judge to have the whole case thrown out and the Judge REMOVED from the bench

[falcon99]

Otherwise know as a corrupt, leftist democrat in a black robe.

[sipow]

I think you aren’t following the chain of the conversation.

I was responding to a poster that wrote:
“What’s the point of having a trial, if the judge just decides on his own?”

I was referring to the fact that since both of these statements are true:
1: “There was a trial by jury and the jury found Trump did not rape Carrol”
2: “The judge has decided that Trump did rape Carrol”

It lets someone say this and be technically true:
“There was a trial by jury and it was decided that Trump raped Carrol”

It implies that the jury decided that, but doesn’t actually say the jury decided that.

My response was half sarcasm and half pointing out how this is an effort by the judge to push the idea that Trump raped Carrol despite the jury saying otherwise.

[Elsie]

I guess it DOES depend on what IS is!

[ConjunctionJunction]

I see. Yes, I missed that.

Thank you for the explanation!