568
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 31 Jan 2024
568 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2078 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
He was never convicted of that, it was a civil trial not a criminal one.
He was found liable.
Right, the primary difference being that a criminal trial would be that the statue of limitations would restrict what a prosecutor can achieve, while there is no such limitation for civil suits.
The amount of evidence and the case proceeding would be largely similar in both.
So while you are technically correct for calling that out, I just want to be clear that had this been a criminal trial, the result would very likely have been the same from the jury.
Maybe he would have been, I'm not a lawyer or judge.
I just believe in America and innocent until proven guilty, and he wasn't proven guilty of that offense.
His actions and responses around the allegations are gross and unbecoming for sure.
Edit:
There's also the vast difference in burden of proof required for a criminal conviction vs a civil trial. It's not only the statute of limitations that was at play here.
Innocent until proven guilty is not a mantra.
It is how the legal system needs to work. It does not mean that your are innocent into proven guilty in the eye of the public, or historical records. It's purely about setting expectations for a working justice system that needs that presumption to function.
That does not mean that a person is innocent and everyone should treat them as if they're innocent until the verdict comes down.
This is an important distinction to make.
Sure, but there's a difference between feeling someone is guilty and stating they were convicted. We shouldn't knowingly be making factually incorrect statements.
It feeds the right when people are so TDS that they are okay with spreading mistruths or fake news.
That's true and fair.
American justice system in a nutshell.
Guy can be found to have done sexual assault, but criminal prosecutors wouldn't touch him because he did it in a city where his close personal friend was the mayor. It took 30 years to reach a judgement against him, and even that was for a relatively piddly sum given the time and effort involved in the pursuit. The thing that really got Trump in trouble wasn't the act of physical and sexual violence. It wasn't the defamation that followed. It was the way he and his lawyer were shitty on the stand in a second trial resulting from his remarks on the results of the first trial.
This is what it takes to bring a rich man to something approaching the possibility justice in America. And even after all this bullshit, there's almost zero chance that a Florida court or Sheriff's Department will assist Carroll in collecting on the damages because... Trump is close personal friends with the governor.
They're definitely not friends. They just follow the same hateful ideology and will put their differences aside for it.
Now that Trump's the inevitably nominee, Ron's falling back into brown-noser mode and will do everything in his power to get Trump to like him. And even if DeSantis wasn't bending over backwards to please the party's kingpin, he wouldn't be terribly inclined to aid a New York feminist and advice columnist in pursuing legal action against The Don.
Yup, he's putting his dislike of Trump aside for the sake of advancing the Christofascist agenda.