Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
duplicateOriginally Posted by Greg ShafferYep....innocent until PROVEN guilty is still a thing in the country I call home. Pretty tired of the "get trump" at all costs mentality prevalent both on the left and the and in the hater crowd.
Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
Of course. do you think the word "exonerate" indicates some sort of shift in the burden of proof in a criminal case? It does not. The burden is and always has been on the state. Who suggested otherwise?Originally Posted by Richard Davis
One is presumed innocent in this nation until proven guilty.
Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
This is just silly. Trump is being afforded due process. You act as if the indictment standing alone was a miscarriage of justice. Why? We have no idea (yet) what evidence was presented to the grand jury.Originally Posted by Richard Davis
Did you ever think that in this nation we'd have so many "Lawyers" in this country who are ready, willing, and able to throw the rule of law and due process out the window the way the "lawyer" here has done and the way hundreds of thousands of other lawyers in this country have done because they hate one man so badly?
Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
I don't think you said that. Rich did say that we are a banana republic and that the rule of law is dead, just because Trump was indicted. Yikes, as if Trump were above the law. I'm not so sure why you have a problem with Trump exonerating himself? That is what defendants do when they are indicted, if the facts are with them. As you know, the burden of proof and evidentiary rules are stacked in the defendant's favor. My guess is that Trump skates. I've posted that dozens of times. I fear it will enhance his electability. JimOriginally Posted by Greg Shaffer
Horse shit..... Its the phrase "it is up to Trump exonerate himself if he can" (being uttered by a lawyer at that) and the other by Pelosi claiming that the burden of proof is on Trump to prove his innocence that triggered Rich and it triggered me as well. It is not up to Trump to prove anything, only to defend himself and the mindset it takes to make such statements implying guilt where none has been proven is antithetical to the very foundation this country rests on.
Rich nor I said anything even remotely implying you cannot be indicted for a crime and you know it. Trump may well be guilty of something (most people are given the sheer volume of laws on the books) however the glaringly obvious political motivation on display with this whole thing is mind blowing.....
Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
I agree with the bolded part. Who knows if this is primarily a politically motivated prosecution? We have no way of knowing until the evidence is presented.Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer
Actually no....being indicted means very little. Conviction on the other hand means everything. People are charged with crimes all the time, without a conviction it means nothing. Feel free to talk to me about it once he is convicted for something. So far it is little more than blatant politically motivated fuckery.
Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
I see it subtly different. It would imply that the prosecutor Bragg is unduly biased. Richard and Dershowitz are right I think, a prosecutor can get an indictment if he wants one. There is also no doubt in my mind that Bragg is biased. But I will be surprised if he let his bias cloud his judgement to such an extent that he is bringing charges he does not think he can prove.Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
That implies the grand jury is biased but there's no indication of that so, yes, we do know that this is not a politically motivated prosecution.
Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
Which parts do we disagree on? I'm sure we don't disagree that Trump is getting due process. Do you think Bragg is wholly without anti-Trump bias? That would be extraordinary for any human being whether he is a prosecutor or not. My point, if I failed to make it, is that even if Bragg is biased against Trump, I have confidence that he is trained to set that aside and only bring indictments he feels strongly are supported by the evidence.Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
Well, we agree to disagree on most of the above comments. Of interest is the former DA, Cyrus Vance, now stating he was told to "stand down" by the Trump DOJ in the same case...
Trump IndictedPosted By James Brown |
Sort of. The grand jury votes based upon the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. It is a one-sided process. I'm not saying that this particular prosecutor manipulated the grand jury. I do think that in the extremely rare case where a grand jury indictment turns out to be totally bogus, it is more likely to be the prosecutor's fault, not the citizens on the grand jury panel.Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
"Which parts do we disagree on?":
"It would imply that the prosecutor Bragg is unduly biased. Richard and Dershowitz are right I think, a prosecutor can get an indictment if he wants one. There is also no doubt in my mind that Bragg is biased."
This went to a grand jury and they voted to indict the guy. End of that story.
What is becoming of our Universities in this Nation.. Better yet, what kind of immature babies are attending our Universities.Posted By James Brown |
I'm pretty sure Richard was also triggered by a group of Stanford law students' inexcusable heckling of a judge invited by the Federalist Society. I think he started a thread about it - the occurrence was March 6. I am pleased that the Dean of the Law School lit up these unruly and unprofessional students. It is a long letter, and probably too long for anyone with only a casual interest to read. The dean stopped short of expelling anyone this time. The associate Dean who aided and abetted the unruly students is "on leave." The dean makes clear that total disruption is not protected, acceptable or tolerated. It is a good letter.Originally Posted by James Lacey
OK, Boomer.
And which greatest generation that went to Omaha Beach are you talking about? Do you mean those who also returned from WWII, supported segregation, and actively fought to preserve it with violence? Is that the greatest generation you are talking about? Look, we can recognize the achievements of the WWII generation without using them to bludgeon the current generation. Besides, the older generation has always complained about the younger generation. Older people have been griping about more youthful people as far back as we have written records.
Nothing so dates a man as to decry the younger generation. -- Adlai Stevenson
What is becoming of our Universities in this Nation.. Better yet, what kind of immature babies are attending our Universities.Posted By James Brown |
I actually skimmed the article - looks like the administration said "no way" to some students' requests for trigger warnings. Win one for the good guys. Did you read the article?Originally Posted by Richard Davishttps://dailycaller.com/2023/04/03/cornell-university-rejects-demands-trigger-warnings/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&nespid=t6V1AzUcb7pLw6Weqy20A5eIsRm8TsptIuqkz_ZovBhm2R5vmlSEY8F81B_sBS_ls9LCl0Ul
This is the type of "Adult" that is now attending our Colleges and Universities.
They are just grown Babies now to be coddled by the leftists that run our Universities.
Perhaps during orientation, all the students should now be given pacifiers, stuffed Teddy Bears, and Security blankets.
It is an embarrassment to think that these grown children need a warning from the staff and their professors that a 'triggering' event was about to happen, and so grab your security blankets and put your pacifiers in your mouths.
Utterly pathetic. This is the mindset that leftists now teach our children attending Universities and Colleges in the US.
In WWII, young men were sent to Omaha Beach with a rifle in hand and today's youth need Pacifiers and Teddy Ruxpin bears to clutch when a speaker comes to their school to present ideas contrary to their own.
