And if a fence-sitter actually follows up on it, this is the kind of thing that could be used as an excuse for them to go full-MAGA.
Recent claims that new documents prove the validity of the Johnson claims are false, because these documents are from 2016 and have nothing to do with what have become known as the “Epstein docs.”
Viral claims that Trump has a history of sexually assaulting children first emerged with the Johnson lawsuits in 2016. Pictures of court documents related to the case have lent perceived credibility to additional unsourced claims of child abuse that followed, and memes frequently combine the two claims.
Such claims are not new, come with several red flags and originated with an aggressive push by a serial fabulist.
@railway692 Snopes is a lot like the OED: A very reliable and trustworthy FORENSIC source, narrowly focused on what is directly provable from (publicly!) available evidence. It is not a court of law, however, and does not work the same way. If courts worked like Snopes does, there would be many credible allegations, but few convictions. The ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard, for example, would be useless.
In the so-called real world, it’s fair to assess unproven allegations as LIKELY true.
@railway692 Not at all. This is about rules of evidence, and I used the OED comparison very deliberately, because they work the same way. OED is scrupulous about verifiable examples in print, and is a very reliable source for that. But it’s much less useful for what many people consult it for: etymology. OED doesn’t do that, but many people think they do, and misinterpret what they read there.
Snopes is solidly driven by verifiable facts. But the full truth is often beyond verifiable facts.
@railway692 Put another way, it’s about different registers of forensics. What you and I and Snopes can directly verify about this would not be sufficient for conviction, by itself. But a reasonable person would conclude from secondary evidence that it’s LIKELY to be true, and that would be sufficient to indict, for a trial that might produce much more solid evidence than WE’VE seen so far. A grand jury would almost certainly indict based on what we all DO know so far.
In that case, I’d rate it as “enough for an indictment” or even “highly suspicious” rather than “likely to be true”.
Calling something “likely to be true” when the evidence just isn’t there feels like an invitation for people on the internet to round up to “100% true and real”.
(Not saying people won’t do that anyway, but that’s a tendency I don’t want to contribute to.)
@railway692 ‘More likely than not’ is part of the operant doctrine of a grand jury. An indictment is brought if the grand jury believes that a conviction is possible. In fact, even the grand jury won’t happen unless a prosecutor and DA also believe that.
The standard of evidence for that is less than that required for a conviction, but greater than mere suspicion.
You are trying to argue a case ahead of trial. Your dispute is based on the discrepancy between different standards of evidence.
https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Johnson_TrumpEpstein_Calif_Lawsuit.pdf
There’s plenty of solid arguments we could make against him, especially about his predatory behavior, but I don’t think this should be one of them.
The claim is muddy at best.
And if a fence-sitter actually follows up on it, this is the kind of thing that could be used as an excuse for them to go full-MAGA.
@railway692 Snopes is a lot like the OED: A very reliable and trustworthy FORENSIC source, narrowly focused on what is directly provable from (publicly!) available evidence. It is not a court of law, however, and does not work the same way. If courts worked like Snopes does, there would be many credible allegations, but few convictions. The ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard, for example, would be useless.
In the so-called real world, it’s fair to assess unproven allegations as LIKELY true.
Are you saying, “If Snopes can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s probably true.”
If so, I don’t understand the logic that gets you to that conclusion.
@railway692 Not at all. This is about rules of evidence, and I used the OED comparison very deliberately, because they work the same way. OED is scrupulous about verifiable examples in print, and is a very reliable source for that. But it’s much less useful for what many people consult it for: etymology. OED doesn’t do that, but many people think they do, and misinterpret what they read there.
Snopes is solidly driven by verifiable facts. But the full truth is often beyond verifiable facts.
@railway692 Put another way, it’s about different registers of forensics. What you and I and Snopes can directly verify about this would not be sufficient for conviction, by itself. But a reasonable person would conclude from secondary evidence that it’s LIKELY to be true, and that would be sufficient to indict, for a trial that might produce much more solid evidence than WE’VE seen so far. A grand jury would almost certainly indict based on what we all DO know so far.
In that case, I’d rate it as “enough for an indictment” or even “highly suspicious” rather than “likely to be true”.
Calling something “likely to be true” when the evidence just isn’t there feels like an invitation for people on the internet to round up to “100% true and real”.
(Not saying people won’t do that anyway, but that’s a tendency I don’t want to contribute to.)
@railway692 ‘More likely than not’ is part of the operant doctrine of a grand jury. An indictment is brought if the grand jury believes that a conviction is possible. In fact, even the grand jury won’t happen unless a prosecutor and DA also believe that.
The standard of evidence for that is less than that required for a conviction, but greater than mere suspicion.
You are trying to argue a case ahead of trial. Your dispute is based on the discrepancy between different standards of evidence.