[QUOTE=Chonch;52248599]Yes. That is how we do things in this country.[/QUOTE]
"Innocent until proven guilty" only works if you haven't been proven guilty.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52248609]"Innocent until proven guilty" only works if you haven't been proven guilty.[/QUOTE]
Trump has not been proven guilty of anything. There isn't even a criminal investigation going on--the probe Rob Mueller has taken over is an intelligence inquiry that won't result in his criminal charge unless evidence of wrongdoing specifically implicating Trump is found. If it's evident enough to make a presumption of guilt like you are, don't you think this would be over already?
I wonder if he's going to pull a Nixon and fire the special prosecutor, that would be hilarious, because then they could impeach him on obstruction of justice.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52248623]Trump has not been proven guilty of anything. There isn't even a criminal investigation going on--the probe Rob Mueller has taken over is an intelligence inquiry that won't result in his criminal charge unless evidence of wrongdoing specifically implicating Trump is found. If such is evident enough to make a presumption of guilt like you are, don't you think this would be over already?[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUuHDOq58XU"]He's a proven liar who flip-flops on literally everything he says at any given time[/URL] and has [URL="http://i.imgur.com/xuKpC23.png"]repeatedly [/URL][URL="http://i.imgur.com/Z7jwMEz.png"]incriminated [/URL][URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-comey-firing-excuse_us_591498abe4b00b643ebc56bd"]himself [/URL]when his [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-security-adviser-mcmaster-denies-that-trump-gave-classified-info-to-russia/"]WH staff has tried to cover something up[/URL]. The [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106"]evidence[/URL] that [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y"]points [/URL]to [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-prosecutor-idUSKCN18D2UQ"]collusion [/URL]is stacking up by the hour, and that's only the [I]public [/I]info - I can't even dare to imagine how much is being held behind closed doors still.
It is absolutely remarkable how you can still defend any of his actions.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52248623]Trump has not been proven guilty of anything. There isn't even a criminal investigation going on--the probe Rob Mueller has taken over is an intelligence inquiry that won't result in his criminal charge unless evidence of wrongdoing specifically implicating Trump is found. If it's evident enough to make a presumption of guilt like you are, don't you think this would be over already?[/QUOTE]
You do realize that investigations of Trump's inner circle being hindered by said inner circle, Trump himself and GOP in general aren't proof positive that Trump is innocent on all charges? Am I understanding correctly that your argument is that investigation should not be even begun before there is irrefutable proof of guilt? What's your logic here?
[QUOTE=Vlevs;52248639]You do realize that investigations of Trump's inner circle being hindered by said inner circle, Trump himself and GOP in general aren't proof positive that Trump is innocent on all charges? Am I understanding correctly that your argument is that investigation should not be even begun before there is irrefutable proof of guilt? What's your logic here?[/QUOTE]
Bring back bad reading.
Trump is innocent until he is proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty of any offense, so he is presumed innocent, regardless of any ongoing investigation. I am not familiar with the law in your country; does this legal concept not exist?
[QUOTE=Chonch;52248646]Bring back bad reading.
Trump is innocent until he is proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty of any offense, so he is presumed innocent, regardless of any ongoing investigation. I am not familiar with the law in your country; does this legal concept not exist?[/QUOTE]
It exists in pretty much every democratic country...
The problem here is that
The person being investigated is in a position of power
and he/they are using that position of power to actively hinder the investigation into themselves.
That's not the hallmark of an innocent group of people.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52248730]It exists in pretty much every democratic country...
The problem here is that
The person being investigated is in a position of power
and he/they are using that position of power to actively hinder the investigation into themselves.
That's not the hallmark of an innocent group of people.[/QUOTE]
Even if he was innocent of whatever his campaign is being investigated for, his attempts to disrupt the investigation are incriminating enough as it is. "Obstruction of justice" and all that.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52248599]Trust me, I've reflected on this quite often. I'm not the blind sycophant you and your ilk paint me as.[/QUOTE]
Quit trying to play the persecuted victim here. The one who paints you as a blind sycophant is in fact yourself. If you don't want us to view you as one then quit acting like one.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52248646]Bring back bad reading.
Trump is innocent until he is proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty of any offense, so he is presumed innocent, regardless of any ongoing investigation. I am not familiar with the law in your country; does this legal concept not exist?[/QUOTE]
It does and as it happens, it is recognized as a universal human right. [B]However,[/B] Polidicks is not a court and posting here does not make one journalist, so the rule doesn't bind our posting. It's bad form, but hyperbole is how people talk here. One hopes that people don't get too invested in their own hyperboles, because that blinds them to reality. See: /r/The_Donald.
[quote]A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.[/quote]
[url]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption+of+innocence[/url]
For bad reading, you can go right back and re-read your exchange with Helix Snake. You're mixing presumption of innocence with speculation whether contested events actually happened behind the scenes and which we don't yet have certainty of. Unlike what you argue, we may actually suggest the possibility that Trump actually is guilty of things he is accused of. Further it's annoying how you propose that if there actually was any wrongdoing on his part, it would've already resulted in conviction. Which is impossible in this short of a timeframe even notwithstanding systematic efforts to sabotage said investigation.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52248599]Trust me, I've reflected on this quite often. I'm not the blind sycophant you and your ilk paint me as. Trump has many character flaws, but he is the sitting President and we have to live with that until his term is up. Big surprise: the federal government is not an internet forum--posting dumb things online is not grounds for removal from office.[/QUOTE]
Accusations stem your reliable tendency to interpret every ambiguous situation in a way favorable to Trump. The fact that he is your sitting president should not shield him from harsh criticism - quite the opposite when it's relevant to his capacity to succesfully run the country. It's the same thing, whether it's him fooling around at international meetings, playing favorites and unfavorites, interfering with investigation where he is involved in or his apparent mental impairment. Trump was a controversial figure since the day he announced to be running and there's no reason to bury controversies when he's in office. He can up his performance or suck it up. After all, he's not any private citizen, he voluntarily ran for one of the most challenging positions in the world.
[quote]There is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign[/quote]
And here I was, thinking that he wouldn't top the perfect combination of flubbing and hilarity that was his 7/11 quote...
[QUOTE=Chonch;52248599]Yes. That is how we do things in this country.[/QUOTE]
You don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means
It means the legal system can not start with the assumption that someone is guilty and then require them to prove their innocence.
It does NOT mean that every single person in the fucking country has to talk like someone has done nothing wrong and can't even consider the POSSIBILITY that they have done something illegal until it's proven that they have in court.
And it does not mean that everyone talking about someone potentially committing a criminal act has to assume they're innocent. Only that the legal system does.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.