Did you even read the shared article? It specifically refutes the argument you're attempting to make. You want to have an honest discussion, then actually focus on the merits of the case. Stop trying to obfuscate the topic by bringing unrelated strawmen.
The conviction was clear, the evidence that drove that conviction was clear, and it was a unanimous verdict by
a jury, not some partial judge.
Since you don't care to actually read, here's the quoted text for your consumption:
“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.”
