08-26-2023, 05:28 PM
(08-26-2023, 05:01 PM)Dill Wrote: "A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood."
Was the judge "inaccurate"?
You are arguing that a unanimous jury "finding" that Trump did, in fact, rape Carroll, as commonly understood,
doesn't make him a "rapist"?
Only a criminal conviction could legitimate use of the term "rapist" on a message board?
And a judge signed off on a search warrant for the raid in Kansas on that newspaper, but apparently that was insufficient in that thread. You guys' faith in a judge's decision seems to be largely predicated on whether you personally agree with the decision. I could point to the Dobbs decision for another example of you showing disdain for judicial competence. An inconsistent opinion is a useless opinion.
As for the judge's statement, it's in blindingly inaccurate. There is a world of difference between a criminal conviction and being found liable in civil court. Large parts of this have already been explained to you. The burden of proof is significantly lower. In civil court is is "preponderance of the evidence" which literally means 50.01% likely versus 49.99% unlikely. You also don't need a unanimous jury. So no, there is an enormous "real-world" difference between that and a criminal conviction.
