• Cruxifux@lemmy.world
      211·
      9 months ago

      Nope, just of sexual abuse. Which is, like…. Come on New York what’s the fucking difference here? Especially when you hear the story of what happened. I don’t understand how they talked the court down from rape to sexual abuse.

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          5·
          9 months ago

          My understanding is that she wasn’t able to say with 100% certainty that he put his penis inside her; that it could have been his finger.

          Which I’m sure is something his lawyers push but is still a pretty sick burn to have on-record, and actually lines up with what his other victims say.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        122·
        9 months ago

        No, it’s because the finding was made in civil court, not criminal court, therefore not convicted.

          • gingernate@lemmy.world
            51·
            9 months ago

            A conviction leads to sentencing (normally) in a criminal matter. A cival court is settling a cival matter, not a criminal one. Criminal courts convict you of a crime and sentence you to some kind of punishment. Cival courts can make you pay a fine, but not convict you of a crime.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                1·
                9 months ago

                That would be a more accurate statement, yes.

                But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.

                So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    361·
    9 months ago

    It’s almost impossible to imagine a picture of Trump that’s worse than the real thing.