Trump was found in court to have sexually assaulted a woman in a fashion that would fit the layman's definition of "rape", although not the legal definition thereof in that venue.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump...

> Kaplan had already outlined why it was not defamation for Carroll to say Trump raped her.

> “As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

> civil trial

So not a criminal case than? Trump didn’t even attend.

The article says the jury did not find enough evidence of the rape claim even at the lower requirement of the civil court.

> Carroll “cannot produce any objective evidence to back up her claim because it didn’t happen,” he told jurors.

You're quoting Tacopina, who is Trump's lawyer.

I'm pretty sure OJ's lawyer also said he didn't do it.

Yep. And the Jury seemed to agree, even in the CIVIL TRIAL.

But I’m not here to be trumps lawyer. I’m here to tell you that you that this scapegoating and conspiring is giving you nothing but anger and not helping you understand the events this week.

But the jury found him liable

Of a lower charge. Not rape (and reminding you for the 3rd time of preponderance of evidence standard)