Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
List of Trump's crimes?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostRather, Mueller detailed 10 episodes that could have possibly maybe been obstruction but for which he lacked the evidence (and apparently the professional and personal conviction) to recommend that Trump be indicted. Instead, he passed the buck to the Department of Justice who, after a thorough review of Mueller's findings, "concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
The public hearings will make things more explicit for you. Please pay attention.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostIn fact, Mueller intended that Congress deal with the matter after he had gathered and presented the evidence of wrongdoing. Lawyers have looked at this stuff and concluded that there is easily enough evidence to get a conviction. Trump has only escaped justice, so far, because he is POTUS. The Ukraine business shows that Barr has gone rogue too.
The public hearings will make things more explicit for you. Please pay attention.
It is entirely possible that the House will vote to impeach, but the Senate not vote to convict/remove, in which case Trump stays in office if he so chooses.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chuckles View PostI am not bying into your idea on how we "must necessarily" understand this as the actions of an innocent man.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostTrump has not been convicted of any crimes. In fact, he has not even been charged. Therefore, he is innocent by definition.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostNonsense! If you commit a crime, you are, by definition, a criminal.
However, whether in Grand Jury, or an actual trial, it is proven I acted in self defense for fear of my life or another person's life, and (in the case of Grand Jury) am "no billed", or in the case of a trial found "not guilty", then I am not a criminal.
Being charged and all the rest does not bear on that simple fact. It is possible, it is even very common, that criminals are never caught. Only non-criminals are innocent.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dirtfloor View PostMueller intended that Congress deal with the matter...Last edited by Mountain Man; 11-12-2019, 01:54 PM.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostHere's the problem with that, ff..... say I kill somebody - and you accuse me of the crime of murder. By your standard, I am a criminal.
However, whether in Grand Jury, or an actual trial, it is proven I acted in self defense for fear of my life or another person's life, and (in the case of Grand Jury) am "no billed", or in the case of a trial found "not guilty", then I am not a criminal.
But, again, a person may be called a criminal based on what is known at the time, yet found not guilty in a court of law, in which case they are NOT a "criminal". That's the whole purpose of the presumption of innocence thing.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostIf 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.
This whole idea that you have some way of knowing ahead of time that somebody is or is not a criminal is nonsense.
Let's go even one step further... somebody could be accused of being a criminal, go to trial and be found "not guilty", but still have committed a crime, the prosecution having failed to make their case.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostInnocent in a legal sense. Though in the proper sense no one is innocent.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAh, but I wouldn't count God in the order of created beings, or place Him in any category.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo, it is NOT "obviously" "not a criminal act". That's what a trial will determine.
Murder is one of the most horrific criminal acts.
And you're just as wrong this time.
But, BEFORE he was formally charged, he could easily have been considered, by your standards, a "criminal" --- he wouldn't even be charged if he weren't supposed to have committed a crime.
This whole idea that you have some way of knowing ahead of time that somebody is or is not a criminal is nonsense.
Let's go even one step further... somebody could be accused of being a criminal, go to trial and be found "not guilty", but still have committed a crime, the prosecution having failed to make their case.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostIn fact, Mueller intended that Congress deal with the matter after he had gathered and presented the evidence of wrongdoing. Lawyers have looked at this stuff and concluded that there is easily enough evidence to get a conviction. Trump has only escaped justice, so far, because he is POTUS. The Ukraine business shows that Barr has gone rogue too.
The public hearings will make things more explicit for you. Please pay attention.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:43 AM
|
10 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 12:28 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 05:54 PM
|
22 responses
83 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 12:25 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-14-2024, 09:50 PM
|
101 responses
408 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:15 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-14-2024, 04:03 AM
|
25 responses
127 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 11:21 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 05-13-2024, 12:51 PM
|
141 responses
892 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:22 AM
|
Comment