• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In civil trials out didn’t work like that. If they can at all prove you knew or should have known the answer you can catch contempt.

    • Patches
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah and if you act like a baboon then you also get contempt yet here we are - Trump has not been found in contempt. Anyone else in the entire world would be locked up for attitude alone

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t have to charge contempt at the time it can be added concurrent to sentences. Doing it now could spark a riot so they’ll wait.

        • Patches
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh Bullshit if any other person acted that way they would be in jail.

          The legal system is not tied to ‘what will unrelated crazy people do’ because you know what - they’re gonna fuckin do whatever they want anyways.

          If we succumbed to that then we should’ve stopped the count when they oh so politely asked. Allowed Congress to refuse to certify. Allowed them to hang Mike Pence because shit - they’re gonna riot some more.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Likely yes.

            Unfortunately when it effects due process it does, he deserves a fair trial just like why other asshole.

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In criminal cases, the charges must be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt; probably == innocent. In civil cases, the bar is only more likely than not; probably == guilty.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, that doesn’t at all change what I’ve said.

        In civil cases, “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” (Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) 425 U.S. 308, 318.)