Sure, it still isn’t a criminal conviction. Perhaps there was sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction and perhaps there isn’t. I don’t know.
One may conclude that in all likelihood he has committed such a crime. However, we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime, because he wasn’t (in the context of that civil matter).
Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable principle and politics is a trivial reason to dispense with it.
I didn’t say it was a criminal conviction, you’re confused.
“we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime” - do not claim that. This was a civil case, not a criminal case, so when trump was found liable for rape, he was not “convicted”, a legal term used to define guilt in a criminal case, not a civil case.
The likelihood of his guilt in raping Carroll in this civil case is called his “liability”.
As a consequence of the evidence presented, trump was found liable of sexual assault that is defined as rape in most states, and the judge presiding over that case clarified that Trump was found liable(legal term for “responsible”), for the rape of Jean Carroll, since the only thing that differs between this sexual assault and rape was New York’s antiquated legal wording that has since been updated.
You are still confused.
I appreciate your backpedal, but no we do not agree.
- You disagree with the judge and jury that dumps was found liable for rape.
I agree with the judge and jury that dumps was found liable for rape.
- Parroting part of what I said, then pretending you said it first while you equivocate rape and bash straw men is much less agreeable than you appear to think it is.
If your greatest desire is pedantry, you should try it on someone who didn’t supply you with your information.
