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
    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.