Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.
Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.
A dressing room, a location, a method of abuse, or even decade of occurrence, is not mentioned at all.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to say that the jury not finding Trump liable for rape is a repudiation of Carroll's story, then it's only fair for me to say that the jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse is an affirmation of her story. If the jury hadn't believed her, they wouldn't have found Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse - not to mention liable for defamation. They would have found him not liable, period.
And if that is what was meant, it apparently happened without being forcibly touched. The court did not charge Trump with forcibly touching her. So, it is not rape or sexual assault.
Carrol did claim that she was forcibly touched and raped. Her claims were rejected.
Sexual abuse obviously involves forcible touching, as does rape. The three options the jury were given were essentially degrees of severity. That the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse rather than forcible touching doesn't mean "therefore he never touched her" any more than finding a defendant guilty of murder rather than manslaughter means "therefore he never killed him."
$5m is nothing to people like Trump, but it's a lot of money as a guaranteed payout for a woman who makes some indemostrable claims.
The jury didn't seem to consider it indemonstrable. I really don't know what you (along with Rushy) are trying to get at here by making these broadly skeptical noises at the very concept of a jury trial, as if
obviously you know better and
obviously the whole thing was nonsense. I wouldn't have supported convicting Trump of a crime based on the evidence shown, but for preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not that he did it - it wasn't an unreasonable decision. On the one hand, you had testimony from the plaintiff, who by all accounts came across as entirely sincere and credible. On the other hand, you had a guy who had been accused of inappropriate sexual conduct by a number of women in the past, who was recorded bragging about how he could forcibly kiss and grope women because he was a star, and was caught repeatedly lying in his deposition about if he knew who Carroll was, had ever met her, or would ever have found her attractive. I would believe the seemingly-honest accuser over the sleazy liar in that situation, and I'm not surprised that the jury did too. If it's a surprise to you that civil trials have a low burden of proof - well, it's always been this way, so be careful if you're ever sued.