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
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. 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.