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

  • @PsychedSy
    link
    58 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
      link
      -38 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
        link
        58 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
          link
          -48 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
            link
            28 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
              link
              -18 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.

              • @PsychedSy
                link
                18 months ago

                We can at least agree on that. He’s also a massive piece of shit otherwise.

                • @Varyk
                  link
                  18 months ago

                  Being a massive piece of s*** is his forte.