• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In civil trials out didn’t work like that. If they can at all prove you knew or should have known the answer you can catch contempt.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Yeah and if you act like a baboon then you also get contempt yet here we are - Trump has not been found in contempt. Anyone else in the entire world would be locked up for attitude alone

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        They don’t have to charge contempt at the time it can be added concurrent to sentences. Doing it now could spark a riot so they’ll wait.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh Bullshit if any other person acted that way they would be in jail.

          The legal system is not tied to ‘what will unrelated crazy people do’ because you know what - they’re gonna fuckin do whatever they want anyways.

          If we succumbed to that then we should’ve stopped the count when they oh so politely asked. Allowed Congress to refuse to certify. Allowed them to hang Mike Pence because shit - they’re gonna riot some more.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Likely yes.

            Unfortunately when it effects due process it does, he deserves a fair trial just like why other asshole.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      In criminal cases, the charges must be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt; probably == innocent. In civil cases, the bar is only more likely than not; probably == guilty.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Yes, that doesn’t at all change what I’ve said.

        In civil cases, “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” (Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) 425 U.S. 308, 318.)