Appeals court upholds Trump’s $83 million fine for defaming E. Jean Carroll
Appeals court upholds Trump’s $83 million fine for defaming E. Jean Carroll
english.elpais.com
Appeals court upholds Trump’s $83 million fine for defaming E. Jean Carroll
"The events date back to the mid-1990s, when the U.S. president allegedly assaulted the writer in a fitting room at the Bergdorf Goodman clothing store in New York."
Do you still have to say allegedly if he has been convicted of it?
It’s a shitty way of writing it, approved by a coward of an editor more focused on ad space within an article. The more appropriate, and succinct, way of saying it would be, “Before being re-elected, the president was convicted of assaulting the writer at the clothing store in the mid-1990s. The conviction was upheld on appeal, and she successfully sued him again for defamatory comments made after the first conviction.”
Except it wasn't a criminal conviction. "Conviction" is not a suitable word here.
Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit for the tort of sexual assault. He was not convicted of the crime of sexual assault. Many crimes also have corresponding civil torts.