Trump Campaign Doubles Down: It’s Totally Fine That He Called His Enemies ‘Vermin’
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
rollingstone.com
Donald Trump's campaign spokesman defended Trump using "vermin" to describe his enemies, while historians compared his language to Hitler, Mousselini.
You are viewing a single comment
Also don't forget to mention it at every opportunity. The rapist Donald Trump must be called exactly that so people don't forget we're talking about a convicted rapist who for some reason is not a registered sex offender which, of course, doesn't mean he's any less of a rapist, which Donald Trump verifiably is.
He's not a convicted rapist. It was a civil trial, not a criminal one. The trial decided that he did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll (but not legally rape, although the judge said it was rape despite the legal definition) but that resulted in a ruling for damages. The statute of limitations for a criminal trial had passed.
So he's not a convicted rapist, but the judge at his civil trial involving rape said he was a rapist. But that's why he isn't a registered sex offender.
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know all those details.
No problem. I wish he had been convicted obviously. And I seriously doubt that is anywhere near the only time he's raped a woman. But like so many other things in his life, he's gotten away with it.
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.
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.
The problem is that calling it sexual assault doesn't make it clear that he penetrated her with his penis without consent. The only reason it's not "rape" is that it wasn't a criminal trial.
The reason it's not considered rape is because it didn't fit New York state's archaic legal definition of rape.