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.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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!

    • mateomaui@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It’s a technical distinction in law.

      No fucking shit, my point still stands.

      I also said the “allegedly” is ridiculous when there’s a mountain of proof.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        No fucking shit, my point still stands

        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.

        • mateomaui@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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:

          Is he guilty of the things of which he’s been accused? Also yes, but in a colloquial sense.

          Feel free to not argue, you could have made that decision already.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s a civil case, so it’s not effectively useless. It’s the whole point. How do you not get that?

            • mateomaui@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Well, look, who’s back.

                This is where I stopped, reading your comment. Calm down, deal with your shit, and have a good night.