Col3814444

Michigan has become the first state to charge GOP figures with an alleged plot to install fake election officials to wrongly declare Trump had won in 2020.

What the jury found Donald Trump did to E. Jean Carroll was in fact rape, as commonly understood, even if it didn't fit New York law's narrow definition, says Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.
Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.
“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 filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts.
Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.”
“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.”
Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”
The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.
The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.
“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”
Kaplan also noted that the verdict form did not ask the jury to decide exactly what conduct Trump had committed, and that neither prosecutors nor Trump’s lawyers had requested it to do so.
“Mr. Trump’s attempt to minimize the sexual abuse finding as perhaps resting on nothing more than groping of Ms. Carroll’s breasts through her clothing is frivolous,” Kaplan wrote.
He added that the jury clearly found that Trump had “ ‘raped’ her in the sense of that term broader than the New York Penal Law definition.”
The motion was a part of Trump’s efforts to appeal the verdict against him. That’s an effort that will apparently continue as he faces a separate defamation lawsuit from Carroll, dealing with claims Trump made about her allegations while he was still president.
But for now, Trump’s effort to push back has led to a rather remarkable clarification that severely undercuts his main talking point.

The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is accused of pushing a similar plot in Arizona to falsely declare Donald Trump won the state in 2020.

It’s the best way to win another Senate term . . . if he doesn’t run for president.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has lampooned yet another of her perceived opponents with the “little bitch” insult she appears to be growing increasingly fond of – this time lambasting Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The Georgia Republican representative was previously removed from the House after referring to her GOP colleague Lauren Boebert as a “little b***h” – but this time aimed her verbal abuse at the special counsel responsible for investigating former president Donald Trump’s alleged retention of classified documents and role in the January 6 insurrection.
Mr Trump was indicted on 37 counts in federal court, including 31 counts of “willful retention” of classified documents some of which pertain to matters of national security. He is also indicted on six counts relating to alleged attempts to impede the investigation.
The former president has vehemently denied the charges against him.
He is being prosecuted by Mr Smith who, according to Reuters, has a solid reputation for pursuing tough cases including those against mobsters and war criminals.
Indeed, Mr Smith supervised war crime prosecutions at the International Criminal Court in The Hague and was also the head of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section until 2015.
However, these qualifications failed to impress Ms Greene, who suggested that Mr Smith was a “lousy attorney” who had not enjoyed a successful career.
“Jack Smith is a lousy attorney,” she tweeted. “His career is filled with mistrials, overturned cases, and judicial rebukes. He only targets Republicans because he’s a weak little bitch for the Democrats.”
Twitter users were quick to mock Ms Greene for her outburst.
“If you had ‘marjorie taylor greene makes ‘little bitch’ her thing’ on your bingo card, please come collect your prize,” Ursula Perano of The Daily Beast tweeted.

The No Labels Party is now the fourth officially recognized political party in Arizona, after the Democratic, Libertarian and Republican parties, for federal, statewide and legislative races.

It is also a scam.

No Labels doesn’t want to follow the rules other parties must follow. Particularly those about making public where its contributions come from.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly put it this way last weekend, “I don’t think No Labels is a political party. I mean, this is a few individuals putting dark money behind an organization, and that’s not what our democracy should be about.”

He added, “It should not be about a few rich people. So I’m obviously concerned about what’s going on here in Arizona and across the country.”

The congressman’s announcement comes amid reports that the former presient may be indicted again

Former President Donald Trump received a target letter from special counsel Jack Smith in the January 6 investigation but his former attorney, ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, evaded a similar fate after meeting with prosecutors.

Giuliani has not received a target letter, his attorney told CNN's Paula Reid, and he does not expect to be charged after he completed a voluntary interview with special counsel investigators several weeks ago

Democrats are facing a tough U.S. Senate map in 2024 so they are eyeing some tough-to-win states for possible pickups, starting with Texas.

The Republican party’s presidential frontrunner, Donald Trump, is openly running a campaign based on turning America into an autocracy. Joy Reid's panel of experts discuss.

The Democratic scion is using his bid for the party’s presidential nomination to inject conspiratorial ideology into the mainstream — to the delight of conservatives

The former president up and stole antiquities that were lent to the White House for a Hanukkah celebration in 2019