Capitol attack and 6th of January hearings

He was convicted in the Brian James court of law. A unanimous verdict.

Cool same level of relevance as the court of law Trump was convicted in.

Did anyone ask for your opinion?

Yes. The same people that asked for yours.

Don't fret, Brian. I will ALWAYS be here to call out your bs.

Brian james and schlitz mmm have received 3 day tempbans for insults

For d2, ed and gorgo, pls be careful about responding to insults with your own personal insults.

Thanks

My apologies. Honestly didn't even consider that it was an insult. Was just repeating what he said back. I'll try to do better.

I remembered joe6pack as being more trolly and less aggro than Brian James, but after a little research, I think you may be on to something. At a minimum, they are both Vitamin D fans.

Green status does not confer access to supercharged search functionality.

I'm just clever.

thanks you were OK; it just struck me that the discussion was heating up and I wanted to ask people to be careful so as not to cross the line as those two had.

not a trump supporter. Has trump been convicted of any crimes?

I dont think hes innocent but you do realize Brian James is right?

There is a weird thing that isn't typical of many other countries, where Trump has been considered "plausibly" a sexual assaulter, not convincted of that as a crime, but the jury decided it was plausible he did so, so in a civil setting he had to pay damages to the person claiming he had sexually assaulted her, because he called her a liar.

Ye i know this is completly ****ed up and in most countries unless you are convincted criminally of something you can deny that ever happened and call anyone who claims you are a criminal a liar (and actually sue for defamation), but that's not how it works under new york state law apparently.

Lets also add in in a state that hates Trump. I am sure they could get the same judgement against Biden in a red state with Tara Reade

Who is saying that Trump has been convicted of a crime? We all know that the criminals trials are ongoing, not completed.

Holy misconceptions, Batman. No. It was not found that he "plausibly" might have committed sexual assault. He was found to have raped her.

"Plausibility" is not a legal standard in civil or criminal proceedings in the United States. The legal standard in civil proceedings effectively is "more likely than not," which obviously is a higher standard than "plausible."

Trump was not held liable for maintaining his innocence in court. He was found liable for making defamatory statements outside the context of a court proceeding. Trump has never been constrained by defamation law from asserting his innocence or otherwise defending himself in a civil or criminal court proceeding. I don't know how many times we have to go over this point.

Also, this has nothing to do with a peculiarity of New York law. For the purposes of this discussion, the burden of proof in civil proceedings is effectively the same in all 50 states, as is the scope of absolute immunity from defamation laws as it relates to in-court statements.

Lastly, this is a two-way street. If Jean Carroll gave interviews in which she stated that Trump sexually assaulted her, and Trump contended those statements were false and defamatory, Trump could sue her for defamation and he would win if a jury found that he had carried his burden of proof under a "more likely than not" standard. In fact, that's exactly what Trump tried to do in a countersuit, but his claims were dismissed.

Plausible is often used to mean exactly more likely than not, it's often sinonymous with probable, anyway we are saying the same thing there.

It was found liable for making defamatory statements when he defended his innocence IN PUBLIC. IN PUBLIC. LOL at the idea you can't defend your innocence in public with the same arguments you can use in court, that's totally ****ed up. I understand that's the law in NYS (and maybe many other states), still absurd for an european.

In most countries you can call anyone who claims you committed a crime a liar, unless you have been convicted of that crime, and it's not defamatory. And you can actually sue and win easily for defamation yourself.

And that's true even in countries where defamation has much easier thresholds, like in Italy or France.

If he just said "I'm innocent" it would be one thing. That's not what defamation means, and it's not what he was found guilty of.

No. Just like in these forums you can make a contrary point without insulting another poster, you can defend yourself IN PUBLIC without making defamatory statements.

If you claim i raped you decades ago how can i defend myself if not by saying that you are lying?

This was the statement which was considered defamatory (first Carroll trial, pic from the lawsuit)

Very normal attempt to defend innocence in public declaring the accuser is lying, that there is no objective corroboration for the claims, and trying to imagine nefarious motives for the lying.

I mean , it's truly incredible you can't defend yourself from public accusations of being a criminal in public ,and be liable for defamation if you do even without a guilty verdict for the crime.

I understand that's the law in NYS, still incredible.

So cute pretending that was all that was said. I can't find "whack job" anywhere in that statement, but he definitely called her that.

Afaik "whack job" was part of the later defamation, the one that allowed the other trial (which also included damages for the aggression for other reasons, as NYS removed the statute of limitations for that after the first trial had ended), i wrote first Carroll trial

Who said you can't? It's all the rest that's the problem.

Then include everything. It wasn't over a single blurb.