Blackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 6:48 am » wrote: ↑ Once you acknowledge why, we'll move on to pulling your other wing off...
Try it and let's see...
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean CarrollBeekeeper » 02 Sep 2026, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑ You're a **** IDIOT.
Do you enjoy getting your *** KICKED more times than you can count??
There has been NO FINDING of rape by ANY JURY, pumpkin!!
No, the JUDGE SAID THAT RAPE WAS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, ****!! PERIOD!!!Blackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑ Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
Clear?
*** kickings are soooo easy on your MORONIC PIECE OF **** ***!! Damn, you are ONE STUPID ASSHOLE!!The Jury's Verdict
- Liability: The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse (as a form of sexual battery) and defamation, but checked "no" on the specific technical charge of rape as it was narrowly defined under New York criminal law at the time (which required vaginal penetration by a penis)
No...
Blackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑ No...
He said
“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.”
Rape is a serious crime defined legally as non-consensual sexual penetration of any body part or object into the vagina, anus, or mouth.Beekeeper » 02 Sep 2026, 5:54 pm » wrote: ↑ NO JURY FINDING OF RAPE!!
Kaplan JUST ADMITTED IT!!
End of your **** and nothing else counts!! He can "opine" all the **** he wants. THAT won't change the FACT that UNDER NY STATE PENAL CODE DEFINITION OF RAPE, there was NO RAPE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, ****!!!
GO **** YOURSELF AND TAKE THE *** KICKING LIKE A MAN INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ARGUE A LOSING POINT!!
**** OFF NOW!!
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
crystalBlackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑ Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
Clear?
Blackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑ No...
He said
“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.”
You say something ****??Re: "Heinous".....It's Relative, Trish.....Post Wed Sep 02, 2026 6:56 pm
*Roshambo, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.
SeeBeekeeper » 02 Sep 2026, 6:05 pm » wrote: ↑ So why did Kaplan put the word "rape" in quotation marks??
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
Blackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 6:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
“Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Blackvegetable » 02 Sep 2026, 8:48 pm » wrote: ↑ “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll.5 Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.”6 And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.Beekeeper » 03 Sep 2026, 6:11 am » wrote: ↑ Nope. NO RAPE per the JURY!!
That's ALL the ever counts no matter
Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2026, 6:20 am » wrote: ↑ So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll.5 Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.”6 And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.
This jury did not award Ms. Carroll more than $2 million for groping her breasts through her clothing, wrongful as that might have been. There was no evidence at all of such behavior. Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of “rape” to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .212.0.pdf