• vegeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The judge in both cases, Lewis Kaplan, has said that the jury’s conclusion was that Carroll had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.”

    Kaplan noted that the definition of rape was “far narrower” than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere.

    The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed … the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 hours ago

      There was no defamation by Stephanopoulos. The problem is the legal definition of “rape” in the state of New York.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Did Stephanopoulos specifically state he committed the crime of rape as defined in the state of New York, or did he just say he raped her with no added context? Seems like you should be able to use the colloquial definition should be fine to use in a news bulletin.

      • magnetosphere@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Fortunately, the legal definition of “rape” has been recently updated in New York, probably as a direct result of the Carroll case.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 hours ago

    This isn’t because they think they’ll loose, they’re trying to appease the ogre before it demands a virgin worth way more than $15mil.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Appeasement is a famously poor strategy when dealing with bullies, that’s 100%.

        However, if you’re referring to Nevil Chamberlain and the “peace in our time” deal with Hitler regarding Czechoslovakia, that’s one of the most misunderstood “teachable moments” in history.

        The central concept of “appeasing” Hitler relies on the false premise that England (or France, or Together) were in a position to do anything about German tanks rolling East. Chamberlain had received intelligence shortly before this meeting that they were absolutely not. England and France were helpless to protect Poland after all. And for months existed in an abortive “phony war” after the official deceleration.

        Also you have to consider British public opinion about another war on the continent with Germany when most could still remember 1914-1918. So not only was Chamberlain helpless to prevent Hitler’s invasion, his political mandate was to avoid war.

        Chamberlain’s reputation for being weak and bowing to Hitler’s demands is undeserved. But worse, is often used as a rational for aggression or as a cudgel to dismiss diplomacy.