When judges start to become activists on the bench, we have a real problem in this country.
That, sadly, is what appears to be the case in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Donald Trump.
The judge appeared to see things quite differently than the jury that awarded the initial verdict, reported the Independent.
He Did Do It
Trump lost the initial case by Carroll, where she alleged that Trump raped her in a department store three decades ago.
Unless I am being special, my understanding of the judgment was that the jury did not find that Trump raped her, but that he did sexually abuse Carroll, and she was awarded $5 million in damages. Not, that is not exactly a flattering decision by any means, but it was not ruled rape, and that is a pretty big deal in legal circles.
Trump’s attorneys had filed a motion to have a new trial due to the high dollar value of the award based on the verdict, but Kaplan chose to redefine the verdict.
According to Kaplan, although whatever happened, if it happened, between Carroll and Trump did not fit the legal definition of rape, Trump did, in fact, rape her, at least in his eyes.
Kaplan wrote that the jury’s findings did “not mean that that she failed to prove that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word rape.”
“Indeed, as the evidence recounted below makes clear, the jury found Mr Trump in fact did exactly that,” reported the Washington Post.
For those wondering why Trump did not receive jail time for sexually abusing her, this was a civil case, so it was only monetary. What is really baffling is that there is no statute of limitations on rape in New York, so if Kaplan is so sure Trump raped Carroll, why were no charges ever brought?
Regardless, Kaplan rewriting the definitions to suit his purpose, which is to take down Trump, is very disturbing, to say the least.
