AOC Comes Under Fire For “Rapist” Tweet Targeting Trump, Sparks Calls To “Sue Her”

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

...

“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.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

So, yeah, let's get those lawsuits filed so we can start the discovery process. That should be fun.

The defendant can subpeona all kinds of uncomfortable stuff. Everything they fail to produce can be leveraged. It'll be great!

Wow, who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?

Doesn't seem like she directly named Trump, so I would think she's legally in the clear. But I'm not a lawyer.

She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist. It’s only slander/liable if the claims are untrue.
This isn’t about winning the case, they just want to force her to spend a gigantic amount of money on a legal defense that will drag on for years and which Trump can use to smear AOC.
- This isn’t about winning the case,
  he doesn't have one. if he was never in office, never ran for office, never was on tv, never was the 'face' of an 'international brand', and never was a public figure..perhaps. but the bar for him because he is those things is extraordinary high, and this ain't even close.
that statement could certainly be seen as being about any number of potential rapists in the government. it’s telling that trump is jumping in front of that statement.

I mean she isn't wrong.

Would be a great lawsuit. Just subooena E. jean Caroll to testify that he raped her, then Donald would scream shit about her and she could sue him again for more millions.

This sounds like a dark episode of Jerry Spiringer

Sue her? For what?

upsetting widdle babby conservative feelings. they're the most fragile people alive

I really love her

Oh sure go right ahead, Streisand the shit outta you being an adjuicated sex offender that is all but certainly on that fucking LIST

Trump didn't "win" his case against ABC. They settled, despite the fact that the judge who presided over Trump's rape case acknowledging that Trump did in fact, "rape" E. Jean Carroll. That's just not the legalese term used in the charges against him.

His lawyers also argued in a civil suit from his ex-wife Ivana in court that "You cannot rape your spouse" as his defense for rape allegations...

Prove it isn’t true.

Let’s go to discovery.

Exactly. She knows she can say this because he can't prove it's untrue and any attempt to sue would only reveal more evidence that she's correct.

Statutory rape is rape, too. If the fat fuck sues, Epstein's list is relevant discoverable evidence to AOC's truth defense. I will call that fat fuck a rapist every day until he sues, so that I can serve discovery on his stupid ass.

Trump is a pedo...

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

Yeah, she should've called him a pedophile

Adjudicated rapist wants to sue for being called a rapist.

For those who missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll

“The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.

“The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.

"It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

So the only reason he wasn't convicted on the rape charge is that his dick is so small they couldn't definitively prove it was his penis.

"based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law."