AOC Comes Under Fire For “Rapist” Tweet Targeting Trump, Sparks Calls To “Sue Her”

Knowing conservatives, they plan to debase the word “rapist” to where it has no meaning like they did with “woke” and are trying to do with “nazi.”

Statutory rape is rape, too. If the fat fuck sues, Epstein's list is relevant discoverable evidence to AOC's truth defense. I will call that fat fuck a rapist every day until he sues, so that I can serve discovery on his stupid ass.

Would be a great lawsuit. Just subooena E. jean Caroll to testify that he raped her, then Donald would scream shit about her and she could sue him again for more millions.

This sounds like a dark episode of Jerry Spiringer

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

...

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

So, yeah, let's get those lawsuits filed so we can start the discovery process. That should be fun.

The defendant can subpeona all kinds of uncomfortable stuff. Everything they fail to produce can be leveraged. It'll be great!

Yeah, she should've called him a pedophile

Wow, who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?

Doesn't seem like she directly named Trump, so I would think she's legally in the clear. But I'm not a lawyer.

She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist. It’s only slander/liable if the claims are untrue.
This isn’t about winning the case, they just want to force her to spend a gigantic amount of money on a legal defense that will drag on for years and which Trump can use to smear AOC.
- This isn’t about winning the case,
  he doesn't have one. if he was never in office, never ran for office, never was on tv, never was the 'face' of an 'international brand', and never was a public figure..perhaps. but the bar for him because he is those things is extraordinary high, and this ain't even close.
- She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist.
  I only wish this were true. Remember that CBS just got finished paying out a multimillion dollar settlement and forced one of their own reporters to apologize for merely reporting that Trump was found liable for rape. Now, granted, there was all sorts of shady stuff going on behind the scenes as CBS was trying to preserve (and was ultimately successful in preserving) a merger.
  But as we all know, all victories like that do is embolden Trump further. Especially in an environment where he's essentially stacked the courts with his own cronies and can easily judge-shop until he gets what he wants topped off by a Supreme Court system hellbent on anointing Trump king. We've seen courts reach back to medieval times and ancient countries to find justifications for their pro-Trump rulings, and I could easily see a judge ruling in Trump's favor not because of the merits of the case but simply because Trump.
  Let's be realistic, it wouldn't even be the first time.
  EDIT: To answer everybody's replies. Yes, I know it was a bribe. But Trump was ultimately successful in his goal of getting CBS to pay out and to force Stephanopoulos to apologize for simply reporting facts as written in the court record. To Trump, why he was successful doesn't matter. All that matters is that he was successful. And when he's successful, he uses that tactic again, and again, and again. He gets one country to bow to his will on trade, and suddenly he's flinging tariffs everywhere. He got one college to bend the knee, and started an attack on universities. He got one corporation to back down, and has been attacking the press since. It's what he does. He was successful with CBS, and is much more likely to use the same tactic on her. He has no legal basis to stand on in 99% of these cases, but he does it anyway because he knows that in the end, the Supreme Court is likely to back him up simply because he's Trump.
  That's the point I'm trying to make. Yes, his case against her would be baseless. But in this political environment, against this person, in this court system that ultimately leads to this Supreme Court, the fact that it's baseless doesn't matter. He has a very real chance of getting his way not based on the merits or the law, but simply because he's Trump and the courts have decided for some reason that he gets to play by a different set of rules.
that statement could certainly be seen as being about any number of potential rapists in the government. it’s telling that trump is jumping in front of that statement.

For those who missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll

“The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.

“The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.

"It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

So the only reason he wasn't convicted on the rape charge is that his dick is so small they couldn't definitively prove it was his penis.

"based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law."

Adjudicated rapist wants to sue for being called a rapist.

Trump didn't "win" his case against ABC. They settled, despite the fact that the judge who presided over Trump's rape case acknowledging that Trump did in fact, "rape" E. Jean Carroll. That's just not the legalese term used in the charges against him.