#e-jean-carroll

Multiple people on this site have repeatedly and absurdly claimed that since it is an "adjudicated fact" that Donald Trump raped E Jean Carroll, publicly denying that he raped her is defamation (or was it calling her a liar is defamation, as if there was a difference).

I will go search through the site for links to these instances if there is honest doubt from someone who hasn't burned up the benefit of the doubt long ago.

Some of the top reasons this is absurd:

1.) The right to confront your accusers is an ancient one in English common law, this right necessarily requires that the claims and credibility of your accusers may be attacked. Much as "freedom of the press" has been appropriately interpreted extremely broadly as a third rail (for it is a slippery slope to start curbing speech) this right has always been and ought to continue to be given a massive radius of avoidance.

2.) The right to free speech has always been interpreted to include matters of public interest and accusations of felonies are matters of public interest no matter who is accused. That is why criminal court cases are matters of public record. Within this broad protection of speech where any man or woman has the right to call anyone accusing or being accused of or claiming to have witnessed a criminal matter 'a liar' is the stacked right of the accused to defend him or herself.

Neither of these two fundamental rights are nullified by the decisions of judges, juries, presidential orders, congressional decrees or anything else. Never once has it been suggested that since a man or woman was convicted (much less found liable) for a crime that they could no longer protest their innocence under the 1st and 5th amendments (the two rights mentioned above).

Furthermore there are numerous famous examples of people maintaining their innocence to the point of publishing books from prison making their case to the public. If there was any way in hell an honest person could misconstrue the constitution, English common law, or defamation law in such a convoluted manner as to suggest such maintenance is itself defamation against witnesses and victims then we would have examples somewhere in the last 200 years of legal history.

3.) The jury was given a piece of paper which had a "rape" checkbox and they did not check it. Being hyper-technical about defamation and then hand-waiving when it comes to the definition of rape is equivocation pure and simple. It's basically saying "I don't care what the state of New York calls rape, but New York and New York juries have absolute authority over what defines defamation."

The fact that anyone could seriously make and double down on these claims make it obvious to me why we're heading for a civil war, you simply can't live in the same civilization with such people and the difference between "evil" and "ignorant" (if there is one) doesn't alleviate the situation.

When you're right you will often find confirmation in a multitude of consistencies and for the same reason when you're wrong you will often have a long and ever growing list of absurd implications and double standards facing you.

I was reminded of all this when I was listening to this video https://youtu.be/xfr3l-fUhq4?t=19 and heard the phrase "adjudicated illegal"

Yes, that did happen. A court process concluded that Jack Smith is for all intents and purposes a private citizen pretending to be a prosecutor.

Now if the fools who made the claims detailed above were consistent (lacked double standards) they would have to conclude not only that Jack Smith could not claim he was a prosecutor after that, but that if he did so it would be the federal crime of impersonating an officer of the united states. After all we can assume malicious dishonesty if an adjudicated fact is contradicted right?

You want to live in a world where it's (practically) illegal to contradict a judge/jury? Have fun, but you can start by sending Jack Smith to prison for three years.