The ongoing tension between Donald Trump and Canada took an unexpected turn when Ontario Premier Doug Ford suggested a counteroffer to Trump's remarks about
Following Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation announcement on Monday, Trump claimed credit for the decision, saying that people in Canada “love” the idea of becoming a U.S. state. This prompted Ford to make his own comments about acquiring U.S. territories.
…snip…
Canadian MP Charlie Angus rejected the idea outright, pointing to differences in the nations’ laws. Angus stated on X that Canada has rules preventing “sexual abusers” from becoming leaders, a clear reference to allegations against Trump.
I would love to have seen Trump’s face when he heard that rejection.
No. He was found liable for sexual abuse in a civil trial. Convictions are criminal and the standard of evidence is higher.
Basically the courts have decided that it’s slightly more likely than not that he sexually abused Carroll, which is all that’s needed to win a civil case. Criminal cases are on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold which is much harder to meet.
Frankly, he probably wouldn’t be criminally convicted because of the higher standard - the defense in a criminal trial doesn’t have to prove the accused didn’t do it, they don’t even have to prove it’s more likely than not they didn’t do it, they only need to prove there’s a reasonable doubt that they might not have done it. And I think there’s just enough wiggle room around it he could possibly skate by.
On one hand, that’s how a criminal standard of justice should work, to prevent wrongfully convicting the innocent.
On the other hand, that would require the system to be functional and fair in the first place, rather than being slanted towards who can afford the better lawyers, but that’s a whole can of worms I don’t think I need to crack open here - we all agree on that anyway.
…snip…
I would love to have seen Trump’s face when he heard that rejection.
Aligations? Isn’t he convicted?
No. He was found liable for sexual abuse in a civil trial. Convictions are criminal and the standard of evidence is higher.
Basically the courts have decided that it’s slightly more likely than not that he sexually abused Carroll, which is all that’s needed to win a civil case. Criminal cases are on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold which is much harder to meet.
Frankly, he probably wouldn’t be criminally convicted because of the higher standard - the defense in a criminal trial doesn’t have to prove the accused didn’t do it, they don’t even have to prove it’s more likely than not they didn’t do it, they only need to prove there’s a reasonable doubt that they might not have done it. And I think there’s just enough wiggle room around it he could possibly skate by.
On one hand, that’s how a criminal standard of justice should work, to prevent wrongfully convicting the innocent.
On the other hand, that would require the system to be functional and fair in the first place, rather than being slanted towards who can afford the better lawyers, but that’s a whole can of worms I don’t think I need to crack open here - we all agree on that anyway.
If PM is prime minister, is MP minister prime?
Minister Prime sounds like a transformers name.
Member of Parliment.
Can we change it to Minister Prime? It seems like a cooler title
Mrime Pinister
Perfect 🤌
Too autobot-ish.
No thats Mana Points
No it’s Maple Pancakes
deleted by creator