
and last note because i have way more important things to do with my time: there is absolutely no reason that you should be arguing in favor of someone who is a known rapist, has been in support and also has likely eaten children and also bombs children both first and second hand over money and land
Accept he hasnāt been convicted of rape. He was found āguiltyā in a civil case for defamation because he said a woman claiming SA was a liar. There was not enough evidence to prove he actually did it the āevidenceā was verbal testimony from the woman and two of her friends. But right itās impossible for people to lie after more than 30 years from it supposedly happening.
It was a civil suit regarding defamation due to an SA allegation. If it was a criminal trial and he was found guilty he would be in prison. If you do your research you would see that Trump was found liable for SA under the āpreponderance of the evidenceā which essentially means more likely than not true. This means there was no hard evidence to suggest it happened. There were just people who said it happened but again it was over 30 years ago. The woman couldnāt even remember the exact year
it was a civil suit because it was outside of the statute of limitations for a criminal proceeding, also the āpreponderance of the evidenceā is the standard for a civil suit meaning that jean carrolls legal team had to prove at least that it was more likely that the assault did take place which they did and therefore they proved that it is more likely that he did it then her lying
Exactly it was āmore than likelyā true. Legally the term āpreponderance of the evidenceā means ā50 percent plus a littleā likely to be true. And again the legal teams āproofā was testimony of people saying it happened over 30 years ago. If it truly happened why wait till now to go forward with justice? Why not have him criminally convicted 30 years ago? It was a story told by people that only bc of abnormal circumstances it was even allowed to be taken to civil court with no irrefutable evidence
Your critical thinking skills are clearly lackluster. More than 50 percent does not mean itās proven he did it. It means that itās more likely to be true than not. 100 percent means he did it and if it was 100 percent he would be convicted. Iām not supporting a rapist because he wasnāt convicted he was accused. Literally anyone can say āthis person touched me wrongā but that doesnāt make it true. And seriously āeatenā children, like how absurd can you be. Also let me guess, pro Palestine?