Jury finds that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1656018047646461952

Wow, convicted sexual abuser sounds pretty bad. My understanding, though, is that because this was reported by a major online media company, one could not be held liable for believing it to be an accurate descriptor of Mr. Trump and saying as much. I haven't been following this story much, but I'll default to trusting this source and conclude that this could definitely be correct and share it widely, especially with any swing voters in my life.

Not to be overly pedantic, but again, it’s a civil suit, so he’s not a convicted anything.

[SteveRogers]

Well the fallout is already beginning:

https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1656034069379989509?s=20
https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1656033996998885391?s=20

You guys are grasping at straws. Trump is in big trouble and it's only going to get worse for him from here

Yep, what the current polls miss is that Trump is going to be stuck in a lot of scandals and he is going to be just totally destroyed at the debates when everyone gangs up on him. I suspect DeSantis will be the main beneficiary in the end, but it could be Haley or someone else.

The question is whether said “fallout” will last longer than the normal 36 hours this time.

[SteveRogers]

It determines guilt or innocence to a different confidence level.

No it doesn't.
Trump was not charged with a crime here.
He was accused of a tort.
You cannot be "guilty" of a tort; that is a description that is confined to criminal trials.
You can be liable for a tort, which is what the jury found.

But he can't be found liable of sexually abusing her unless they find it's more likely that than not he sexually abused her. So in that sense he was found guilty of doing that to that confidence level.

But that’s not what “guilty” means in a legal sense either. A jury in a criminal case has two possible verdicts: “guilty” or “not guilty,” with “guilty” meaning the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt results in a not guilty verdict. There’s no such thing as being guilty by a lesser standard of proof.

[SteveRogers]

12 people listened to all of the evidence and followed instructions to find it was more likely than not that he sexually abused her (tort definition, sure). So they found he was guilty of doing. It doesn't mean that they thought he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they would if the rules of evidence in a criminal trial were followed, and that statement doesn't imply such either.

It is absolutely correct to say that the jury found that Trump sexually abused her. However, they did not “find him guilty.”

Look, I’m not gonna die on the hill of being against non-lawyers using the term “guilty” colloquially. I just don’t think think we need to give the Trumpists any low hanging fruit by misstating things.

[SteveRogers]

at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that this statement is true: Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse.

I mean, the statement isn't really true though.  Guilty would mean he was found guilty of a crime.  This was a civil trial.  It is correct to say he was found liable, not that he's guilty.

But in this case, being "liable" means the jury concluded that more likely than not, Trump is guilty of committing a crime.  The differences between this and a criminal trial are that the standard of proof is lower, he faces no criminal penalties, and the jury's finding isn't officially called "guilty."  But to someone who doesn't know civil law, it's misleading to say that "...he was found liable, not that he's guilty" because there are other situations where individuals or entities are not considered, by any standard of proof, to have themselves committed the wrong but are nevertheless held liable (for example, companies for the actions of individuals who work for them).  That's not the case here.  

If we're going to have this sort of debate, we should acknowledge that words often have multiple meanings and that a legal definition, when it exists, is not the only one that carries weight.  If a guy lives alone but has a girlfriend, is he single?  Legally speaking, yes.  The relationship has no legal recognition, he checks the "single" box when he does his tax returns, etc.  But is he single in the way the word is used in ordinary, everyday speech?  Definitely not.  If he has sex with another woman and his girlfriend finds out, he'll hardly be able to persuade her to stop being angry with him by saying that legally he's single

The problem is that if our talking point becomes “Trump found guilty” or “Trump is a convicted sex offender,” his supporters will annoyingly but correctly point out the inaccuracies in those headlines and whine that the media is lying about him and treating him so unfairly blah blah blah. So why even give them the ammunition? Why even allow them the obvious retort instead of just saying “the jury found that he sexually abused Carroll”?