Donald Trump’s campaign spokesman defended Trump using “vermin” to describe his enemies, while historians compared his language to Hitler, Mousselini.
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.
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.
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.
