this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
455 points (99.3% liked)
AntiTrumpAlliance
1733 readers
652 users here now
About
An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.
Rules
-No pro-Trump posts or comments
-No off topic posts
-Be civil
-No trolling
-Follow Lemmy terms of service
Social Media
Other Communities
!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sadly, this is not quite true (hear me out).
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts in hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, and then falsifying business records to cover that up. But then, this fucking Judge sentenced him to an unconditional discharge (no prison, no fines, no probation) to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land."
I wish he was a convicted sex pest... because in E. Jean Carrols case, a Jury found that Trump sexually abused her. He was held liable but never conviced of sexual abuse, because conviction is a criminal proceeding while this was a civil case. If he would have been convicted of sexual abuse, he would more likely be behind bars, where he fucking belongs.
Is he convicted? Yes.
Is he a sex offender? Yes!
Was he convicted of being a sex offender? No.
Should he be? Yes!!
In the end, I think we should not engage in wrong information, lying is what he does.
He's an adjudicated rapist, not a convicted one.
Rape is a criminal charges, though, not a civil offense. The adjudication was for sex abuse. He is a rapist in a colloquial understanding of the word given the nature of the sex abuse that he was found liable for meets the definition and criminal requirements of rape. But the adjudication was not for "rape" but for "liability for sex abuse (and defamation)" because a judge cannot adjudicate a crime without a criminal charge and trial, and he hasn't been tried or convicted for sex crimes. Yet.
Legality still not beating the amoral allegations
It's worth noting for the next time this comes up, that the burden of proof is different in civil and criminal cases (balance of probabilities vs. beyond reasonable doubt, your jurisdiction may vary).
Remember OJ? They could convince a jury he probably did it in the civil trial, but the criminal one decided (somehow) that reasonable doubt remained.
Hmm maybe, yes, I just didn't want to go this far into legalities. Preponderance of evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt is (I think) less important when only commenting on what is factual and what is not.