Trump the Autocrat.

[carpedm9587]

The adage "innocent until proven guilty" is often misused. It is a legal adage. It means the person is innocent under the law, until there is sufficient evidence to convince a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent people have been convicted, making them "legally guilty." It doesn't mean they did the deed. The legal system screwed up. And sometimes a person who actually did the deed gets away with it for lack of evidence. They are legally innocent, but it does not mean they did not do the deed.

Until Trump is indicted/impeached, he is legally innocent. An investigation (or investigations) is (are) needed to determine if there actually is sufficient evidence to file charges. Trump's base wants to go from "suspicion" straight to "exonerated" without stopping anywhere in between. Of course, that was not the standard used during the Obama administration, when investigations were close to nonstop on one issue or another, or with respect to Clinton. Then it was a desire to jump from "suspicion" to "lock her up" without a stop in the middle.

Makes one wonder how the Republican Party ever came to be associated with "rule of law."

[One Bad Pig]

The obviousness of your trolling is, as ever, refreshing.

[Sparko]

The adage "innocent until proven guilty" is often misused. It is a legal adage. It means the person is innocent under the law, until there is sufficient evidence to convince a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent people have been convicted, making them "legally guilty." It doesn't mean they did the deed. The legal system screwed up. And sometimes a person who actually did the deed gets away with it for lack of evidence. They are legally innocent, but it does not mean they did not do the deed.

Until Trump is indicted/impeached, he is legally innocent. An investigation (or investigations) is (are) needed to determine if there actually is sufficient evidence to file charges. Trump's base wants to go from "suspicion" straight to "exonerated" without stopping anywhere in between. Of course, that was not the standard used during the Obama administration, when investigations were close to nonstop on one issue or another, or with respect to Clinton. Then it was a desire to jump from "suspicion" to "lock her up" without a stop in the middle.

Makes one wonder how the Republican Party ever came to be associated with "rule of law."

Maybe because we actually understand it where you clearly don't.

You don't have to (and can't) exonerate someone who has not even been charged with anything. There is nothing to exonerate. Even Trump gets it wrong when he says he is exonerated.

[firstfloor]

The adage "innocent until proven guilty" is often misused. It is a legal adage. It means the person is innocent under the law, until there is sufficient evidence to convince a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent people have been convicted, making them "legally guilty." It doesn't mean they did the deed. The legal system screwed up. And sometimes a person who actually did the deed gets away with it for lack of evidence. They are legally innocent, but it does not mean they did not do the deed.

Until Trump is indicted/impeached, he is legally innocent. An investigation (or investigations) is (are) needed to determine if there actually is sufficient evidence to file charges. Trump's base wants to go from "suspicion" straight to "exonerated" without stopping anywhere in between. Of course, that was not the standard used during the Obama administration, when investigations were close to nonstop on one issue or another, or with respect to Clinton. Then it was a desire to jump from "suspicion" to "lock her up" without a stop in the middle.

Makes one wonder how the Republican Party ever came to be associated with "rule of law."

It is interesting as well that jurors give verdicts of guilty or not guilty, and not, guilty or innocent.

[carpedm9587]

Maybe because we actually understand it where you clearly don't.

You don't have to (and can't) exonerate someone who has not even been charged with anything. There is nothing to exonerate. Even Trump gets it wrong when he says he is exonerated.

You don't have to LEGALLY exonerate them. They are LEGALLY innocent until proven guilty. We all know that.

That does not mask the fact that we have suspicions and there has not been an investigation to determine if those suspicions are justified and an indictment/impeachment is warranted. But somehow, just the idea of investigating is a problem. Oddly enough, you cannot actually establish actual guilt or innocence without an investigation.

If this were a Law and Order Episode, it would be a 3-minute show:

Detective: We think Joe over there killed his neighbor because of X, Y, and Z. We need to investigate to determine if we should indict or not.
Citizen: He's legally innocent, so you can't do that.
Detective: We know he's legally innocent until proven guilty, but we cannot even begin to prove him guilty or exonerate him until we investigate.
Citizen: Sorry - no need to exonerate - he's already innocent. No investigation.
Detective: Cool. I'll go eat a donut.

[Sparko]

You don't have to LEGALLY exonerate them. They are LEGALLY innocent until proven guilty. We all know that.

That does not mask the fact that we have suspicions and there has not been an investigation to determine if those suspicions are justified and an indictment/impeachment is warranted. But somehow, just the idea of investigating is a problem. Oddly enough, you cannot actually establish actual guilt or innocence without an investigation.

You just got finished talking about exoneration and the "rule of law" and when I correct you on it, you say you are not talking about "legally"

You know, carp, it is actually OK to admit you are wrong once in a while, it will actually HELP your reputation.

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps you should stick to things about which you know even a little.

[Teallaura]

22 months of investigation. If you can't get the job done in that time, you can't get it done at all.

Democrats should let it die - but instead seem determined to take the entire party down in flames.

[Cow Poke]

At work today one of my co-workers insisted that Mueller testified twice and while he was off his game in the morning he appeared fired up and ready for the second hearing. He said he thinks that Mueller got angry at how he was questioned earlier and this lit a fire under him.

Anyone know what he's talking about?

There were two sets of hearings, but only one set of reality, and your co-worker has manufactured his/her own.

[carpedm9587]

You just got finished talking about exoneration and the "rule of law" and when I correct you on it, you say you are not talking about "legally"

You know, carp, it is actually OK to admit you are wrong once in a while, it will actually HELP your reputation.

So exactly what part of my original post do you think was "wrong?"

[carpedm9587]

22 months of investigation. If you can't get the job done in that time, you can't get it done at all.

Democrats should let it die - but instead seem determined to take the entire party down in flames.

Despite the right-wing mantra on this - Mueller DID get it done. No explicit Russian collusion (but plenty of taking advantage of the Russian's activities, which is not illegal but SHOULD be a cause for concern for all of us and should be a political bombshell), and multiple documented instances of potential obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, the investigation did NOT touch on multiple other issues (conflicts of interest, campaign finance, post election finance, potential foreign compromise, emoluments, pay-to-play, etc.). What was NOT investigated under the mandate of the special prosecutor remains to be investigated. Let the investigations begin. I would very much like to see all of Trump's garbage hauled out into the sunlight.

But if you are right, and Trump actually did nothing wrong, then you should welcome these investigations. They will shine a spotlight on an ethical and upright president and all but guaranty the Democrats will lose both houses and the executive branch in 2020.

Somehow - I think we all know there is dirt there. There is simply too much smoke.

[Sparko]

So exactly what part of my original post do you think was "wrong?"

The part I corrected. Is your attention span that short?

[Cow Poke]

You don't have to LEGALLY exonerate them. They are LEGALLY innocent until proven guilty. We all know that.

That does not mask the fact that we have suspicions and there has not been an investigation to determine if those suspicions are justified and an indictment/impeachment is warranted. But somehow, just the idea of investigating is a problem. Oddly enough, you cannot actually establish actual guilt or innocence without an investigation.

If this were a Law and Order Episode, it would be a 3-minute show:

Detective: We think Joe over there killed his neighbor because of X, Y, and Z. We need to investigate to determine if we should indict or not.
Citizen: He's legally innocent, so you can't do that.
Detective: We know he's legally innocent until proven guilty, but we cannot even begin to prove him guilty or exonerate him until we investigate.
Citizen: Sorry - no need to exonerate - he's already innocent. No investigation.
Detective: Cool. I'll go eat a donut.

Um... that might be how things are done in Carpeland on Wacky Wednesday, but in real life that doesn't happen - nothing close to it.

He would be PRESUMED innocent until convicted, but first, there would need to be probable cause to believe an offense has actually been committed

THEN, an investigation is done to gather evidence and testimony.
THEN, the alleged offense needs to be...

A) chargeable (there needs to be an actual belief that an offense has been committed)
2) presented to a grand jury, (after somebody - district attorney or other similar authority) has deemed the case has merit)
C) then prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt.

Often, because the DA (or similar authority) might not believe it can actually be proven in court, even THOUGH it might pass a grand jury, the case is never prosecuted.

Impeachment adds a whole new layer to that, because the Grand Jury is, in essence, the House, and the Jury is, for all practical purposes, the Senate.

If you can't convince in the Senate, all else is simply political bluster and grandstanding.

[Sparko]

Despite the right-wing mantra on this - Mueller DID get it done. No explicit Russian collusion (but plenty of taking advantage of the Russian's activities, which is not illegal but SHOULD be a cause for concern for all of us and should be a political bombshell), and multiple documented instances of potential obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, the investigation did NOT touch on multiple other issues (conflicts of interest, campaign finance, post election finance, potential foreign compromise, emoluments, pay-to-play, etc.). What was NOT investigated under the mandate of the special prosecutor remains to be investigated. Let the investigations begin. I would very much like to see all of Trump's garbage hauled out into the sunlight.

But if you are right, and Trump actually did nothing wrong, then you should welcome these investigations. They will shine a spotlight on an ethical and upright president and all but guaranty the Democrats will lose both houses and the executive branch in 2020.

Somehow - I think we all know there is dirt there. There is simply too much smoke.

yeah tying up congress for 4 years on baseless allegations and investigations? You could be right. Better to keep congress busy doing nothing than to have them actually start screwing up the country with idiotic legislation.

[Cow Poke]

Despite the right-wing mantra on this - Mueller DID get it done. No explicit Russian collusion (but plenty of taking advantage of the Russian's activities, which is not illegal but SHOULD be a cause for concern for all of us and should be a political bombshell), and multiple documented instances of potential obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, the investigation did NOT touch on multiple other issues (conflicts of interest, campaign finance, post election finance, potential foreign compromise, emoluments, pay-to-play, etc.). What was NOT investigated under the mandate of the special prosecutor remains to be investigated. Let the investigations begin. I would very much like to see all of Trump's garbage hauled out into the sunlight.

But if you are right, and Trump actually did nothing wrong, then you should welcome these investigations. They will shine a spotlight on an ethical and upright president and all but guaranty the Democrats will lose both houses and the executive branch in 2020.

Somehow - I think we all know there is dirt there. There is simply too much smoke.

The problem is that it's not only Trump who's smoked --- can you say Fusion GPS? (To which Mueller replies, "huh?, I don't know what that is".)