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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -21 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.

    • @aidanM
      link
      61 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -3
        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.

        • @aidanM
          link
          61 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -4
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

            • @aidanM
              link
              31 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.

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -3
                edit-2
                1 year 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.

                • @aidanM
                  link
                  31 year ago

                  I clarified they didn’t find he was a rapist. They found he was a rapist based on a preponderance of the evidence

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -31 year 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              51 year 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -41 year 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year 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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -11 year 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.