Just a moment...
www.axios.com

Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon on Friday set the trial date in the classified documents case against former President Trump for May 20, 2024, per a court filing.

  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
    7·
    1 year ago

    That’s not really true. The E Jean Carroll case found him liable for defamation in a civil case. The standard was lower than for a criminal conviction (just as OJ lost his civil case but was not convicted of murder).

    Furthermore, Trump basically accepted that he was liable for defamation, but not necessarily guilty of rape. That was enough for the judge, so he did not have to “confirm” anything else.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      61·
      1 year ago

      You’re kind of both right and both wrong. Trump was not literally convicted of rape, that’s true. On the otherhand the defamation he was found guilty of was saying the E Jean Carroll was lying about him raping her. One logically follows from the other. You do raise a good point though in that the burden of proof in this case was lower.

      At the very least we can say it is highly likely Trump is a rapist based on his conviction (plus the various comments he has been caught making such as his infamous “grab em by the pussy” remark).

      • Cubes@lemm.ee
        2·
        1 year ago

        Actually, Trump was explicitly found NOT liable for rape, but for “sexual abuse” in the E Jean Carroll case. This was a question that was asked of the jury, and they said that they had not proven that he raped her.

        That said, I fully believe he did rape her and do agree with your assertion that it is still likely that he’s a rapist. However, it is still factually inaccurate to say he’s a “convicted rapist” or even that he was found liable for rape because those have specific legal meanings.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        In general, when someone refuses to contest an allegation then nobody will determine whether the allegation is true. There are reasons to do this even if the allegation is false. For example, it might be too expensive to litigate. Or in defending yourself against one charge, you might have to reveal additional information that you don’t want brought to light.

        In other words, nobody found Trump guilty of lying. For all we know, the judge and jury thought Trump was telling the truth. But legally, they were forced to presume he defamed Carroll because Trump refused to contest the allegations. The only thing the court had to decide was what the damages would be if Carroll was telling the truth. Which automatically became the actual damages.

        That said, it’s entirely reasonable for you to suspect he committed rape based on other evidence. But the court verdict itself neither supports nor refutes your suspicion.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Realistically Trump would have at least attempted to defend himself if he was actually innocent barring worry about being forced to reveal even more incriminating evidence (which for the purposes of this conversation would actually be worse). The only other reasonable explanation I could see applying would be if he just didn’t care, that he felt the judgment would be small enough he could effectively ignore it, and that he knew his base wouldn’t care because they never believe he does anything wrong. That still seems to run counter to his usual behavior though and would demonstrate a level of calculation that literally Trumps entire life has shown him incapable of, although maybe for once he actually listened to one of his advisors.

          While the court case isn’t absolute proof of his guilt, it does weigh very heavily in favor of it. I think it’s highly misleading to say it neither supports nor refutes the allegations of rape. It absolutely supports those allegations, it just doesn’t unequivocally prove them.