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.
See more
See less

List of Trump's crimes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Prosecutors can not exonerate. They either charge someone with a crime, or they don't. If they don't then no exoneration is needed. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
    I think I have seen a case or two in which you allowed yourself to be suspicious even if the person was not proven guilty. And, in case you have not noticed, I have not claimed Trump was guilty. I have only said I am not bying into your idea on how we "must necessarily" understand this as the actions of an innocent man. I think it is certainly worth it to further investigate his actions.
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Rather, 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."
      In 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.
      “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


      • #33
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        In 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.
        Here's the problem, ff.... It really doesn't matter what lawyers think, because it is POLITICIANS who will decide Trump's fate, as impeachment is entirely a POLITICAL process, not a legal one.

        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chuckles View Post
          I am not bying into your idea on how we "must necessarily" understand this as the actions of an innocent man.
          Trump has not been convicted of any crimes. In fact, he has not even been charged. Therefore, he is innocent by definition.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Trump has not been convicted of any crimes. In fact, he has not even been charged. Therefore, he is innocent by definition.
            Nonsense! If you commit a crime, you are, by definition, 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.
            “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


            • #36
              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
              Nonsense! If you commit a crime, you are, by definition, a criminal.
              Here'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.

              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.
              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.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                Mueller intended that Congress deal with the matter...
                Only because he knew he didn't have the evidence or the guts to deal with it himself, so he was hoping the partisan hacks in the House would do his dirty work for him.
                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Here'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.
                  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.
                  “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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                    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.
                    No, it is NOT "obviously" "not a criminal act". That's what a trial will determine.

                    I am referring to real criminal acts.
                    Murder is one of the most horrific criminal acts.

                    We have had this discussion before;
                    And you're just as wrong this time.

                    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.
                    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.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Trump has not been convicted of any crimes. In fact, he has not even been charged. Therefore, he is innocent by definition.
                      Innocent in a legal sense. Though in the proper sense no one is innocent.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        Innocent in a legal sense. Though in the proper sense no one is innocent.
                        I know One!!!!
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I know One!!!!
                          Ah, but I wouldn't count God in the order of created beings, or place Him in any category.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Ah, but I wouldn't count God in the order of created beings, or place Him in any category.
                            I was talking about His Son, but..... um...... yeah, your point still stands.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              No, 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.
                              I think you are missing the point. Crime is a matter of law, not justice. Murder is a crime not because a jury thinks so, but because the Law says so. A murderer might conceivably be insensible to his crime and have no witnesses or evidence against him; no one but God calls him criminal.

                              A criminal who leaves court not convicted and “without a stain on his character” is still a criminal. This is not a contradiction, but a description of a state of knowledge. It stems from the fact that people tell lies.
                              “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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                In 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.
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                270 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X