You mean a Clinton judge said stuff contrary to what a jury decided that weighed the evidence with a much easier bar than a reasonable doubt.I base my statement on Judge Kaplan's analysis and statement:
“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.
“As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … 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.” (Emphasis mine. Source).
If you want to continue to maintain that Trump is not a rapist because the jury did not check a box on a form, you are free to do that. Like the judge, I maintain that Trump is a rapist because the jury found he digitally penetrated a woman's vagina without her consent.
Last edited: