If it was you who was accused of something and a jury did find you civilly liable for requiring just 51% preponderance of the evidence, would you say it's wrong to continue to maintain your innocence?

I'm not talking about Trump. I'm asking what the consequences of this standard are for someone who isn't Trump. What about someone who was found liable but didn't actually do the thing? Should they be forced to tell everyone the court approved version of the story?

If that's the standard for civil cases, what about criminal cases? Should we make it illegal to maintain your innocence after you've been convicted of a crime? After all, we decided to a much higher standard that such a person definitely did it.

Tread carefully because the same standard will cut both ways..

Now I'd you just mean that he's a dishonest jerk, obviously. I mean, he can't even deny all the way before he starts veering off course because he needs to talk about how great he is lol.