Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Mountain Man]

...in order to prove his innocence...

This is the United States of America, Jimmy. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence, it is presumed until he is formally convicted of a crime.

[JimL]

About politics.

CP, we all no why you are claiming it's all about politics, it's just your subtle way of once again defending Trump and parroting his "it's all just a hoax by the democrats."

[Cow Poke]

This is the United States of America, Jimmy. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence, it is presumed until he is formally convicted of a crime.

Nadler was playing that sheisty game saying that Trump's failure to appear pretty much proves he's guilty --- in an actual courtroom, the defense would object, and the judge would sustain, and explain to the jury how it really works.

[JimL]

The easiest way to deflect is to accuse the other side of the very shenanigans you're doing.

Hey, you've finally recognized the republican party modis operandi, OBP. Good job!

[Cow Poke]

CP, we all no why you are claiming it's all about politics...

because it's politics.

Unless, of course, it's aliens!

[JimL]

Nadler was playing that sheisty game saying that Trump's failure to appear pretty much proves he's guilty --- in an actual courtroom, the defense would object, and the judge would sustain, and explain to the jury how it really works.

Really CP? In an actual courtroom the defendent doesn't get to fail to appear.

[Cow Poke]

Really CP?

Really, Jim.

In an actual courtroom the defendent doesn't get to fail to appear.

It depends, Jim - in a civil trial, the defendant is not required to appear. In a criminal trial, he is not required to testify. Even in the case of a misdemeanor, the defendant may have his attorney appear for him.

Don't believe everything you read in those talkingpoints, Jim.

[firstfloor]

This is the United States of America, Jimmy. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence, it is presumed until he is formally convicted of a crime.

You keep getting this wrong. How do you think people get to trial at all, if they are presumed innocent? You have a faulty justice theory. All you are entitled to is a fair trial.

At trial and before, a person is accused of a crime - that is in no way a presumption of innocence.

[JimL]

This is the United States of America, Jimmy. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence, it is presumed until he is formally convicted of a crime.

Of course he doesn't have to, but he is free to if he so desires. He could explain the whole thing to the american people, but he wouldn't dare, and I'll give you one guess as to why.

[Cow Poke]

You keep getting this wrong. How do you think people get to trial at all, if they are presumed innocent?

It'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.

You have a faulty justice theory.

I can understand why somebody from a foreign country (beautiful though it may be) would think that.

All you are entitled to is a fair trial.

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....

[Cow Poke]

Of course he doesn't have to, but he is free to if he so desires. He could explain the whole thing to the american people, but he wouldn't dare, and I'll give you one guess as to why.

Because he prefers to Tweet!

[Mountain Man]

Nadler was playing that sheisty game saying that Trump's failure to appear pretty much proves he's guilty --- in an actual courtroom, the defense would object, and the judge would sustain, and explain to the jury how it really works.

If that's really the standard they want to set then it begs the question why Democrats don't want Biden to be investigated.

[Teallaura]

It'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....

I'm on my phone or I'd link it. Try presumption of innocence in Wiki. It's common to most nations and several international organizations.

[Mountain Man]

You keep getting this wrong. How do you think people get to trial at all, if they are presumed innocent? You have a faulty justice theory. All you are entitled to is a fair trial.

At trial and before, a person is accused of a crime - that is in no way a presumption of innocence.

I don't know how it works in your country, but in the US, people appear in court to contest the charges against them, and they are presumed innocent until the final verdict is read. Otherwise, there would be no point in even having a trial.

Let me put it like this: every single person who has ever been found not guilty in a court of law was charged with a crime at some point.

[Cow Poke]

I'm on my phone or I'd link it. Try presumption of innocence in Wiki. It's common to most nations and several international organizations.

He's arguing that ..... it's a bit convoluted.... if the guy murdered somebody, then he's not innocent cause he's a criminal, blah blah blah yada yada yada....

What he's missing is FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW, he must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

It's kinda like I say to salespeople when they want to sell me something --- "OK, I start at 'no' - your job is to get me to 'yes', or at least, 'maybe' -- you have 30 seconds".