370
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 30 Aug 2023
370 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2079 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
This is called the "full Alex Jones"
Not to brag, but I called this https://lemmy.world/comment/2467076
It's going to be interesting to see how "for purposes of this litigation only — does not contest the factual allegations" is going to fly in the criminal case.
I don't think the court system allows you to admit you lied in one case and then go "No, no, that's only for that ONE case... this criminal case is TOTALLY different..."
It kinda does though. Standards of proof are different between civil and criminal trials. Your "right to remain silent" is only relevant for criminal proceedings. This is why you will never be required to take the stand in your own criminal trial. This gives you coverage for shady law enforcement inferring criminal guilt based on your silence or reluctance to answer questions.
Contrast that with civil proceedings where you do not have the right to remain silent. In those if you refuse to answer a question, the judge/jury/finder of facts can legally infer a negative response. So if asked "Did you do the thing?" and you remain silent, they can assume you did the thing. In a criminal trial, they can't assume you did the thing.
This brings us back to the standards of proof. For criminal it's "beyond all reasonable doubt". For civil it's "a preponderance of the evidence". Consider these to be effectively 100% and 50% respectively. Now why this makes sense in this case is he effectively admitted that there's a better chance someone would think he's lying than telling the truth. He's admitting to the 50%, but not admitting it's provable beyond all reasonable doubt at 100%.
Just to quibble, reasonable doubt is not 100% certainty.