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

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months 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
      ·
      8 months 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.

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

        I’m using the term reasonable doubt to describe how beyond a reasonable doubt it is that Trump is a rapist.

        You are implying that the court criminally found Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and railing against that criminal finding that nobody but you are putting forth.

        I mean, some other people are making mistakes with the word convict in this thread, but they’re quickly corrected by the rest of the commenters.

        Stick to whatever definition of reasonable doubt you prefer, but it doesn’t mean that in the real world, the judge and jury did not reasonably find his liability doubtful and therefore find Trump liable of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

        • aidan@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months 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.

          This was the original comment. I said that they found he was more likely than not a rapist, not that he was a rapist beyond a reasonable doubt. That was my correction.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            So nobody even mentioned reasonable doubt until you brought it up yourself and added a baseless correction of your own narrow definition of reasonable doubt from an imaginary criminal trial?

            Not exactly a clincher.

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

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        You’re narrowly insisting on a verdict of criminal liability versus actual liability, which you aren’t going to find in a civil case.

        I am referring to actual responsibility. I have no reasonable doubt that Trump is a rapist. The jury found a Trump liable for rape, and the judge clarified that Trump is liable for rape.

        No matter how much you like this guy, Trump was found to be a rapist.

        • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          I do not like the guy. I’m explaining that beyond a reasonable doubt may be something you feel is appropriate, but it’s not because of the civil suit, because that’s not the standard of evidence in a civil suit.

          I’m comfortable saying he was a rapist way before the civil trial.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re still just repeating and agreeing with everybody else in this thread who’s saying that this is a civil, not a criminal trial. I guess good job if that’s what you’re going for?

            That is correct. This is a civil case. Not a criminal case.

            The jurors, reasonably, do not doubt his liability of rape. The judge, reasonably, does not doubt that Trump is liable of rape.

            You’re just being precious about a term that is not exclusively used in jurisprudence.

            Trump was found liable of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

            • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              No, you’re being intentionally obtuse and awkwardly stubborn and nobody knows why but you.

              Why use the exact same wording as a legal standard? You could have said “he’s a rapist, without a shadow of a doubt” and we’d have all known what you meant. Instead you decide you’re going to die on this weird ass ambiguous hill.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                I’m thriving on this hill. Some of you are married to certain interpretations of common phrases, and that is just your neurosis.

                Revel in it.

                Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt or its shadow, is a rapist.