OK, let me see if I can get this straight. E. Jean Caroll claimed that Trump raped her.
The jury didn't believe her story as they did not find Trump guilty of rape.
Soooo... they didn't believe her testimony about the rape occuring but they somehow believed that he sexually abused her (but didn't rape her) instead. She claimed rape but the jury decided that they thought that it was actually sexual assault because... Ouija boards and Magic 8 Balls?
Bear in mind that there's no video, no evidence, no eye witnesses. So the jury just said that they wanted to find Trump guilty of something (IMO).
Anyway, the jury didn't believe that the rape happened which is what Trump also claimed.
However, Trump was found guilty of defaming Caroll when he claimed that the rape didn't occur... as the jury also said.
Does this make any damn sense whatsoever?
In summary:
"You're charged with rape but we don't believe the charges. We don't like you so we'll just say that you committed sexual assault even though that is not the "Victims" claim."
"Oh yeah, even though we agree with you that a rape never happened we still don't like you so let's say that you defamed the "Victim" by denying the rape... that we also don't think happened."
That's my opinion.
As always, YMMV.
No comments:
Post a Comment