Nope, just of sexual abuse. Which is, like…. Come on New York what’s the fucking difference here? Especially when you hear the story of what happened. I don’t understand how they talked the court down from rape to sexual abuse.
A conviction leads to sentencing (normally) in a criminal matter. A cival court is settling a cival matter, not a criminal one. Criminal courts convict you of a crime and sentence you to some kind of punishment. Cival courts can make you pay a fine, but not convict you of a crime.
But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.
So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.
He’s unquestionably a rapist, but he is not a convicted rapist.
Nope, just of sexual abuse. Which is, like…. Come on New York what’s the fucking difference here? Especially when you hear the story of what happened. I don’t understand how they talked the court down from rape to sexual abuse.
Money
My understanding is that she wasn’t able to say with 100% certainty that he put his penis inside her; that it could have been his finger.
Which I’m sure is something his lawyers push but is still a pretty sick burn to have on-record, and actually lines up with what his other victims say.
Money and power
Yet.
Semantics. Some might classify the sexual assault he preformed as rape.
No, it’s because the finding was made in civil court, not criminal court, therefore not convicted.
Huh? You can be convicted in civil court…
A conviction leads to sentencing (normally) in a criminal matter. A cival court is settling a cival matter, not a criminal one. Criminal courts convict you of a crime and sentence you to some kind of punishment. Cival courts can make you pay a fine, but not convict you of a crime.
Again, another argument of semantics.
Would change nothing for me, maybe for yourself, to say Donald Trump was found liable of sexual assault by a judge and jury in the court of law.
Edit:
You keep obfuscating, though.
Sure, he’s a rapist. But not a convicted rapist. That’s all that’s being said
That would be a more accurate statement, yes.
But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.
So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.