With testimony winding down after more than two months, the Republican 2024 presidential front-runner showed up to watch an accounting professor testify about financial topics important to the case.
Trump himself is scheduled to take the stand Monday, for a second time.
“This is a witch hunt, and it’s a very corrupt trial,” Trump said on his way into court Thursday.
He still doesn’t grasp that this is not a trial. The judge has already found the Trump org guilty. This is about assessing damages.
Technically, they’ve been found liable - not guilty - as this is a civil trial. But, yeah, you’re right. At this point, it’s just a matter of determining how much they’ll have to pay.
In this case, it’s a useless distinction that encourages people to still deny responsibility. “They said I had to pay something but I’m not guilty of anything.” Like the press still having to say “allegedly” when there’s a mountain of proof something did really happen.
It’s a technical distinction in law. Is he guilty of the things of which he’s been accused? Also yes, but in a colloquial sense.
As far as the “allegedly” thing goes with the press: I’m kind of on the side with agreeing with it, just because I know that if I were wrongly accused of a crime that made it to the press, I know I would want them to use the word “allegedly” until it was actually proven edit: * in a court of law*.
Ok, enough with the pedantry!
No fucking shit, my point still stands.
I also said the “allegedly” is ridiculous when there’s a mountain of proof.
Actually, it doesn’t. It’s the difference between civil and criminal law, and that’s a pretty big difference, not the meaningless one you stated it is, and if this is going to go from a nice casual discussion to a hostile argument, I’m not interested in participating further. Have a nice day.
deleted by creator
Yes, my point about the effective uselessness of it in this case does still stand, whether or not you agree with it. Yet, you basically did agree with it:
Feel free to not argue, you could have made that decision already.
It’s a civil case, so it’s not effectively useless. It’s the whole point. How do you not get that?
Well, look who’s back.
What part of the original commenter’s colloquial use of the word “guilty” did you not understand?
Outside the specific legal distinction, to the public at large, he’s effectively guilty. “Liable” or whatever, he did it.
Do you need a picture drawn for you or something?
edit: what’s remarkable to me here is that you were too busy being offended by the phrase “no fucking shit” to recognize that was an acknowledgment that there is a legal distinction. That’s what you’re still arguing about. I already acknowledged that there is a legal distinction, while also pointing out that it doesn’t really matter to people who say he’s guilty. Because he is. He only has a technicality to claim he wasn’t guilty.
Actually, he was found guilty on one count. The trial is partly to decide how much money he has to pay, and partly to decide if he’s guilty on any of the other ~6 counts.