540
Trump Campaign Doubles Down: It’s Totally Fine That He Called His Enemies ‘Vermin’
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
540 points (96.9% liked)
politics
18075 readers
2805 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
Found that he was more likely a rapist, not a rapist beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I clarified they didn't find he was a rapist. They found he was a rapist based on a preponderance of the evidence
You clarified a point everyone else already made. Great work.
Thanks 👍
No problem, haha, i can be very supportive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We can at least agree on that. He's also a massive piece of shit otherwise.
Being a massive piece of s*** is his forte.