Donald Trump’s campaign spokesman defended Trump using “vermin” to describe his enemies, while historians compared his language to Hitler, Mousselini.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      No problem. I wish he had been convicted obviously. And I seriously doubt that is anywhere near the only time he’s raped a woman. But like so many other things in his life, he’s gotten away with it.

    • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      A jury if his peers still found that Trump was a rapist. The judge in that trial clarified that the jury finding meant that Trump was a rapist.

      This was after the Trump camp claimed, after losing the defamation suit, that none of this meant that Trump was a rapist.

      So the judge explicitly clarified that the jury had found that Trump had committed rape.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Found that he was more likely a rapist, not a rapist beyond a reasonable doubt.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Trump was found to be a rapist by a jury because he used his fingers to sexually assault and violate a woman. The judge clarified that Trump raped Jean carroll.

          Those conclusions are beyond reasonable doubt.

          • aidan@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those conclusions are beyond reasonable doubt.

            No that’s literally not what they found, because it was not a criminal trial. That wasn’t the burden of proof. He may be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil court is not legally capable of proving that.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Trump was not criminally convicted as his rape trial was a civil case, not criminal.

              Those jurors found Trump responsible for digital rape that in New york is defined as sexual assault, that the judge clarifiedas rape because trump violated a woman sexually, the new york legal term is just too narrow here for the finding because he used his fingers to violate her vagina.

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

              Still rape.

              Your doubt is your own, but seems unreasonable.

              • aidan@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m talking about the legal term, reasonable doubt. To prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in a court is a different process. One that isn’t done in a civil court, therefore it can’t prove it. That doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, just that a civil court can’t prove that.

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  So you’re just agreeing with what everyone else has clarified, that this is a civil, not criminal trial.

                  The jury and judge found Trump liable for rape. This finding is beyond a reasonable doubt.

                  No, baby hands is not criminally liable beyond a reasonable doubt, he is civilly liable for rape beyond a reasonable doubt according to judge and jury.

                  • aidan@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My criticism is using the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” about the court’s finding. Which it didn’t claim to make and can’t have made.

                  • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No. He means that a civil trial uses different evidentiary standards. In a civil suit the standard is “preponderance of the evidence”, while a criminal trial requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

                    It’s factually wrong to say it’s beyond a reasonable doubt due to the civil suit.