Originally posted by Cow Poke
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
Take This Impeachment And Shove It...
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe point is that neither Trump nor his Attorneys will show up in his defense, okay. Now, what happens in that case, CP. I'll tell you. In a civil case, if you don't show up, if you're not represented in court, you lose.
In a criminal case, felony if you want to get technical, you can't fail to appear.
In any case, you have to have representation, and that was the point.
Trump is given that option, but he chooses not to appear, not to have his lawyers appear, not to call all those witnesses he claims would clear him. That should tell you something, but of course it doesn't.
Impeachment is not the same as a civil or criminal trial, Jim. It's just not.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostActually, that's not always true -- the judge may find there's no merit to the case and not allow it to proceed.
Yes, I made that quite clear in my actual cite.
No, not in ANY CASE - that's the point.
Jim, you offering me legal advice is like me trying to give you advice on women's fashion. You made a dumb claim which I proved false, and you just can't seem to let it go.
Impeachment is not the same as a civil or criminal trial, Jim. It's just not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostEh, you just don't get it, CP. No one said that impeachment was the same as a criminal trial, what we said is that Trump is given the opportunity to appear with his Attorneys, to testify, to have witnesses testify on his behalf, and he refuses to do so under the phoney excuse that the whole thing is a hoax. If it's a hoax, then he should appear, have his attorneys present, have his witnesses appear, and prove that it's all just a hoax. If this were a court, that's what he would have to do, because the charge is a criminal offense.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt's a process. They start off "innocent", and have to be charged with an offense to end up in court. There, they are still assumed innocent until the prosecution meets the burden of proof.
I can understand why somebody from a foreign country (beautiful though it may be) would think that.
Actually, there are more elements -- like the right to face your accuser, a trial by a jury of your peers (in many cases), the right to an appeal....
You see, a person on trial might be innocent, but he is not there because a prosecutor presumed he was. His presumption was the exact opposite.
In Trump’s case, he has been a suspect most of his adult life, and quite possibly since birth.Last edited by firstfloor; 12-03-2019, 12:14 PM.“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostNo, no, no. Your journey to the slammer starts when you are suspected of criminal behaviour.
The presumption of innocence only applies when you are standing in the dock and means only that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and the justice system has to be fair to the accused.
At no point is the defense required to prove innocence, though, if they can, that would certainly be beneficial.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo, my friend, that's when your journey to the judging process happens, and may result in not passing go, not going to jail, and not paying a fine of $200. (get the reference? )
And, unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are NOT innocent, you remain PRESUMED innocent, and may well skip the journey to the slammer altogether!
At no point is the defense required to prove innocence, though, if they can, that would certainly be beneficial.
I have more to discuss but the movement of the bus makes it difficult to type. I’m thinking....“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostWhile you replied, I was editing.
I have more to discuss but the movement of the bus makes it difficult to type. I’m thinking....
Meanwhile, singing it with me!!!! The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostThe point is that neither Trump nor his Attorneys will show up in his defense, okay. Now, what happens in that case, CP. I'll tell you. In a civil case, if you don't show up, if you're not represented in court, you lose. In a criminal case, felony if you want to get technical, you can't fail to appear. In any case, you have to have representation, and that was the point. Trump is given that option, but he chooses not to appear, not to have his lawyers appear, not to call all those witnesses he claims would clear him. That should tell you something, but of course it doesn't.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 dirtfloor View PostNo, no, no. Your journey to the slammer starts when you are suspected of criminal behaviour. The presumption of innocence only applies when you are standing in the dock and means only that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and the justice system has to be fair to the accused. Your status then is “the accused” not “the innocent”.
(In the US, they are also commonly referred to as "the defendant".)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 PostI enjoy your calm rational - albeit extremely wrong-headed and loony leftist - discourse.
Meanwhile, singing it with me!!!! The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...
Then, it's time for the main segment, which is a deep dive into the "administrative state" and specificially the "nondelegation doctrine" at issue in U.S. v. Gundy.
https://openargs.com/oa338-nondelega...trative-state/“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
From what I understand the House conducts the investigation and if they find it has merit it goes to the Senate for the "trial"
At this point, Trump does not want to give the House democrats the air of legitimacy by participating in the "investigation"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI point out again, every single person who has ever been found "not guilty" was, at one point, known as "the accused".
(In the US, they are also commonly referred to as "the defendant".)“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostJim, you made a dumb statement which I proved false by using actual quotes and cites --- do yourself a favor, and stop digging. You seem to be in a particularly combative mood of late.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWrong CP...The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
44 responses
259 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 03:14 PM
|
||
Started by Starlight, 04-14-2024, 12:34 AM
|
11 responses
87 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 10:57 AM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-13-2024, 07:51 PM
|
31 responses
180 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 11:50 AM
|
||
Started by Juvenal, 04-13-2024, 04:39 PM
|
42 responses
329 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 08:59 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-12-2024, 01:47 PM
|
165 responses
829 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 05:57 PM
|
Comment