List of Trump's crimes?

[RumTumTugger]

If there is a defence that an act that might superficially look like a criminal act, but is not, then obviously, that act is not a criminal act. I am referring to real criminal acts.

We have had this discussion before; that once a suspect is charged and gets to court he is entitled to a fair trial, which means that the prosecutor has to prove his case to a defined standard, and importantly, that the accused does not have to prove his innocence. The shorthand for this is innocent until proven guilty. It applies only to an accused person on trial.

we will never know if there is a defense Adam Schiff refuses to let hte defense bring any witnesses. Again what is Adam Schiff trying to hide hmm?

[firstfloor]

No it will only show what a sham this impeachment is since Adam Schiff refuses to let the defense bring out any of it's witnesses. which brings out hte questions what is Adam Schiff will be found out by the American people?

I think in this next phase, defense witnesses are allowed. If there is to be an impeachment vote, I hear it is likely to happen before the Christmas break. I think they have decided that Nunes is too stupid to ask any more questions.

[Cow Poke]

I think you are missing the point.

And I think you are.

Crime is a matter of law, not justice.

I think that's rather simplistic. But, using your definition, only the law can determine the guilt, therefore, the "criminal" status.

Murder is a crime not because a jury thinks so, but because the Law says so.

Killing is not necessarily murder - that's what the law will decide. Some killing is justifiable.

A murderer might conceivably be insensible to his crime and have no witnesses or evidence against him; no one but God calls him criminal.

God would call him a sinner.

If he was falsely accused, or otherwise justified in the killing, he was never a criminal to begin with.

This is not a contradiction, but a description of a state of knowledge. It stems from the fact that people tell lies.

Again, you're making this FAR too simple. Crimes come with definitions, which often have a number of requirements that have to be met in order for the offense to be considered a crime.

[Cow Poke]

ff, let's cut to the chase.

I would agree that somebody who actually committed an actual crime, meeting all the elements of the statute which defines the crime, is, for all intents and purposes, a criminal whether found guilty in a court of law or not.

HOWEVER, there is no way for you to know who is and who is not a criminal apart from that person having been tried and found guilty of the offense for which he is charged.

Are we there, yet?

[firstfloor]

And I think you are.



I think that's rather simplistic. But, using your definition, only the law can determine the guilt, therefore, the "criminal" status.



Killing is not necessarily murder - that's what the law will decide. Some killing is justifiable.



God would call him a sinner.



If he was falsely accused, or otherwise justified in the killing, he was never a criminal to begin with.



Again, you're making this FAR too simple. Crimes come with definitions, which often have a number of requirements that have to be met in order for the offense to be considered a crime.

[firstfloor]

ff, let's cut to the chase.

I would agree that somebody who actually committed an actual crime, meeting all the elements of the statute which defines the crime, is, for all intents and purposes, a criminal whether found guilty in a court of law or not.

HOWEVER, there is no way for you to know who is and who is not a criminal apart from that person having been tried and found guilty of the offense for which he is charged.

Are we there, yet?

[Cow Poke]

OK, still not knowing what's your point. What good is it "knowing" that somebody who committed a crime is a criminal, if we don't know for sure that the person committed the crime?

[firstfloor]

OK, still not knowing what's your point. What good is it "knowing" that somebody who committed a crime is a criminal, if we don't know for sure that the person committed the crime?

[Cow Poke]

That doesn't change the fact that Christmas falls on the 25th of December again this year, ff.

[Starlight]

HOWEVER, there is no way for you to know who is and who is not a criminal apart from that person having been tried and found guilty of the offense for which he is charged.

Eh? What about in cases where we know the evidence and can use our own brains?

Sometimes we even say "I think the jury/judge/court got it wrong" when they render a verdict that is at serious odds with what we know to be the evidence.

[Cow Poke]

Eh? What about in cases where we know the evidence and can use our own brains?

Heck, then why do we need judges and juries?

Sometimes we even say "I think the jury/judge/court got it wrong" when they render a verdict that is at serious odds with what we know to be the evidence.

And that matters, why? You think you can't make an error, or be subject to bias?

[Starlight]

You appear to be desperate to make an obviously-guilty Trump be innocent. And you appear to be very very creatively reinterpreting the concepts of innocence, evidence, and crimes, turning basic concepts upside down in order to accomplish the goal of making Trump look slightly less guilty. You appear to prefer to give up on the entire concept of justice rather than admit Trump committed crimes. That's kinda sad and pathetic.

I guess Hillary and her emails are totally exonerated by your new standards. No court has judged her guilty, so she's Totally Innocent Folks!

[Cow Poke]

You appear to be desperate to make an obviously-guilty Trump be innocent.

Assuming you're talking to me (having failed to address this to anybody in particular, but posting right after me) you got that WAY wrong. I mentioned absolutely nothing about Trump.

And you appear to be very very creatively reinterpreting the concepts of innocence, evidence, and crimes, turning basic concepts upside down in order to accomplish the goal of making Trump look slightly less guilty. You appear to prefer to give up on the entire concept of justice rather than admit Trump committed crimes. That's kinda sad and pathetic.

I guess Hillary and her emails are totally exonerated by your new standards. No court has judged her guilty, so she's Totally Innocent Folks!

You appear to be talking out your six, Star. But that's not surprising at all.

[Mountain Man]

Until we have good reason to think that Trump committed any crimes (and even Mueller, as dirty as he was, was reluctant to pull that trigger), we must necessarily consider Trump innocent.

[RumTumTugger]

I think in this next phase, defense witnesses are allowed. If there is to be an impeachment vote, I hear it is likely to happen before the Christmas break. I think they have decided that Nunes is too stupid to ask any more questions.

Adam Schiff has already denied the witnesses the Republicans requested FF and the one witness they had in teh closed hearings that showed the defense he didn't call. he is going to make sure that only his false narrative is the one heard.