The fact that this was a civil case, where the burden of proof is significantly lower than a criminal court case, it's essentially based on he-said/she-said.
Throw in a judge and prosecutor who are friends and coworkers.
Throw in the witness not even remembering the year it allegedly happened.
Throw in the suspect situation where they were both willingly in a dept store changeroom; two people who barely knew each other getting frisky.
Throw in overwhelming negative bias towards Trump.
Throw in a woman scorned.
Throw in a jury who did not conclude rape.
And you can argue the judgement for the plaintiff all you want...but doesn't make him a rapist.
But that's fine!
That's just you saying you disagree with the legal proceedings and think they reached the wrong conclusion.
You don't think he is a rapist.
We disagree.
If that was your argument, it would just be the normal disagreement people have about things.
Instead, you've been arguing all this legal semantic bullshit to try to "prove" that he can't be called a rapist.
It's just silly and makes you look silly.
The above is far better than your weirdo bullshit about legal definitions.
You don't believe it happened, so you don't think he should be called a rapist.
Why has that been so hard for you to say?
scri.siena.edu
