i am not sure what you mean, it was never a case of guilty vs innocent it was a civil case of liable or not, and they explictly said "no" to the charge of rape. i can post the jury form again if you would like. it says "no" to the rape charge. NO. could you show the quote where i was in error?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ the judge in the case says otherwise
sorry friend, case was determined by a jury, not a judge. jury said no to rape charge. judge can think whatever he wants. jury decided case, found "no" for rape. would you like me to post the jury verdict again?
“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 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. Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.” “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.” Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”
exactly. and it worse than that. the standard was way less than proof, it was a preponderance of evidence and they clearly said "no" to that. i cam post the jury form again if you like
