If E. Jean Carroll prevails in her case against Trump...

[PJMcK]

… can we call him a convicted rapist?

A friend wants to know.

[usedtobedemgurl]

1. No.

It is a civil trial not a criminal one. But I will call him a rapist, convicted or not.

[Effete Snob]

2. You can call him whatever you want

[PJMcK]

4. Thanks

I like that.

I’ll stick with “Trump” because it’s the ugliest noun I know.

[Ocelot II]

3. This isn't a criminal trial and he won't be convicted of anything.

He might be held liable for the torts of defamation and battery and ordered to pay money damages to Carroll. That's it. You can call him a rapist but as far as the criminal law is concerned, he was never charged or convicted of that crime.

[GenXer47]

5. I'm guessing the question is about slander/libel

I had the same question but more specifically; if I were to run an ad referring to "Trump the Rapist", could I be sued for libel?
I'm sure I could call him rape-liable but that just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

[Ocelot II]

6. It wouldn't be defamatory if you said a jury concluded he'd raped Carroll,

because that would be true, assuming that happens (and I think it will). You just can't publish a statement that he's a convicted rapist because a finding of liability in a civil case isn't the same as a conviction.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

14. Is it accurate to say he was adjudicated a rapist? (nt)

[Ocelot II]

15. If he's found liable, it will be for the tort of battery, which includes sexual assault

if that's specifically what the plaintiff alleged. The dictionary definition of "rapist" is simply "a person who commits rape," and "rape" is defined as "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will." "Unlawful" might narrowly mean only something that is prohibited by statutory, i.e., criminal, law, but the broader meaning is "not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention." If a person can recover damages for committing a particular act, even one that is not specifically criminal, that act would certainly be unlawful - if it wasn't unlawful, the law wouldn't provide a remedy. Rape is, of course, also a crime, but TFG couldn't be prosecuted only because the criminal statute of limitations had run long ago. This is a whole lot of parsing, but if the jury determines that he is liable for damages for battery in the form of sexual assault, to say that he has been adjudicated a rapist, or that he had been found to have committed rape, would not be a false statement.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

16. Thanks! (nt)

[PJMcK]

18. Great response

Thanks for taking the time to write that detailed explanation. Much appreciated.

In the end, I call the traitor, “Trump.” It’s the ugliest noun I know.

[Tommy Carcetti]

7. Nope.

But we can call him a liable defamer.

[PJMcK]

8. I like Effete Snob's response, #2 above

Anything I want.

[Tommy Carcetti]

10. I'm sure you can.

But that doesn't mean it would be factually accurate.

Which is sort of the whole point of civil actions for defamation.

[PJMcK]

12. I called him Trump

It’s the ugliest noun I know.

[Tommy Carcetti]

13. Won't argue that with you.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. No

[Tetrachloride]

11. Trump has had and has now the opportunity to testify in any number of

cases. But he doesn’t.

call him a rapist . he won’t do much except bluster.

[world wide wally]

17. I will

[llmart]

19. That's what I'm going to call him.

I don't really care if it's legally correct or not. If the GOP can use all sorts of incorrect labels for our Democrats and get the media to use them also, then we need to hang this one around their necks from now until President Biden wins the next election.

While Dems are dicking around about semantics, the GOP is lying their asses off and the media repeats it ad nauseum.