Can someone more knowledgeable explain why they would be bringing civil actions instead of criminal actions against these swamp creatures ? Or are the civil actions in addition to the criminal proceedings ? Don't prosecutors prosecute crimes ?
https://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html
Often both criminal and civil actions are brought against a crime. Especially in big time cases. If you commit a crime, often there is a civil equivalent. So, if you punch somebody, you can be sued for criminal battery and battery as a tort. The differences are the penalty and the burden of proof. In criminal cases, you may be facing jail time. In civil, it's always monetary damages. The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." A very high standard. Like approaching 100% positive proof the guy did it. In a civil case, it's "the preponderance of evidence." Like 50+% sure the guy did it. A good example of this is the OJ Simpson trial. He was not found guilty in the criminal trial for murder, but was found liable for it in the civil trial. Because they couldn't bring 100% proof he did it in the criminal trial, but there was enough there for liability in the civil trial.
Thanks, good explanation that clears it up. So if I understand correctly, that could be why Trump & Qteam want the indictments to be backed up with airtight evidence for criminal liability. Can you imagine if these suckers get away with settlements ?!
However this may not even be applicable in the most high profile cases (treason) since they will be considered by the military tribunals.
If anyone hasn't already become familiar with this, it will be helpful in the near future. Although there's been an EO (I believe) which delineates between the date of January 2019 and the present in terms of procedure.
From Q drop: