One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Trump Standing Trial For Hush Money Payments, Seems To Me...
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
May 25, 2023 16:06:32   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
nonalien1 wrote:
Yup bidens minority fringe group of misfits is an embarrassment to our country. And the worst part is that they are all so incompetent at what they do . As long as you can do an outstanding job in your chosen field, you can dress and act pretty much as you want. But when you are in over your head people notice, and it don't look too professional when you're a man wearing a dress or are confused about your g****r


Severe and profound.

Reply
May 25, 2023 16:10:48   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
Byrd wrote:
The law is not working the way it is supposed to, the Democrats are making sure of that. What happened to the " innocent until proven guilty?
Carroll has no evidence, doesn't know what year it was, claimed it happened 30 years ago,happened in a dept. store in Mahatton which was probably crowded, no calls for help, said Trump wanted her to try on some lingerie he was thinking about buying, any woman with an ounce of common sense would have told him no, so it probably was part of her lies, didn't file a police report, nothing.
Had no evidence it ever happened. Put it in a book she wrote, hoping it would help the sales, Jury decided she lied about the rape, but judge said he had to pay her $5 million for assault. Never heard of that before.If she lied about the rape, why does the judge think he should pay her for the assault? Sounds like a crooked judge to me.
You can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it happened. Just like the stripper that lied and was told to pay Trump $700,000 for the expences he had because she lied. That judge would probably thrown out Carroll when he found she had no evidence anything happened.
Indictment? Evidence? None.
The law is not working the way it is supposed to, ... (show quote)


Innocent until proven guilty does not begin until you are in the courtroom .
Until then , you are the accused .

Reply
May 25, 2023 16:54:29   #
Byrd
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty does not begin until you are in the courtroom .
Until then , you are the accused .


You are always innocent until proven guilty, regardless of where you are at. No matter where you are, you are not guilty until proven guilty.
You may be charged with a crime arrested and jailed, you still are not guilty until proven so.
If it is proven you are innocent, then you have been falsely accused. Until then you are presumed guilty. but that doesn't mean you are.

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2023 17:16:19   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
Byrd wrote:
You are always innocent until proven guilty, regardless of where you are at. No matter where you are, you are not guilty until proven guilty.
You may be charged with a crime arrested and jailed, you still are not guilty until proven so.
If it is proven you are innocent, then you have been falsely accused. Until then you are presumed guilty. but that doesn't mean you are.


Nope.
The presumption of innocence applies to the courtroom. Within the courtroom you are innocent until proven guilty .
The presumption of innocence does not apply to public opinion.
Once charged , you become the accused .


This explains it better;

Presumption of innocence doesn’t mean a suspect is innocent, leading Sydney barrister warns
This article is more than 1 year old
Bret Walker SC, who represented George Pell and Christian Porter, cautions against ‘magical thinking’
Paul Karp
@Paul_Karp
Tue 15 Jun 2021 22.50 EDT
The high-profile barrister Bret Walker SC has warned that the presumption of innocence doctrine should not be misunderstood to mean that a person is in fact innocent.

Walker told the Rule of Law Education Centre’s Presumption of Guilt conference on Tuesday it would be “terrible” if the presumption of innocence meant everyone was compelled to regard an accused person as innocent until they were convicted.

The barrister said the concept meant instead that the prosecution had “to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused”. He labelled the view that a person was necessarily innocent until they were convicted as a form of “magical thinking”.

Walker is an eminent senior counsel and former independent national security legislation monitor who successfully represented George Pell in his appeal to the high court. He also represented the former attorney general Christian Porter in his defamation case against the ABC, which was discontinued by agreement.

In February the ABC reported that an unnamed cabinet minister had been accused in a dossier sent to Scott Morrison of a sexual assault in 1988 when he was 17 and the alleged victim was 16. Porter then identified himself as the minister, and strenuously denied the allegation.

Quietly and confidently, George Pell's barrister tried to unravel the prosecution's case
David Marr
Read more
In March the prime minister declared that Porter was an “innocent man under our law” because he had never been charged with or convicted of sexual assault.

Police had begun an investigation but concluded there was “insufficient admissible evidence” to continue after the complainant withdrew from the process, then took her life.

On Tuesday Walker said that “unfortunately both politically and socially in everyday language people – many of them lawyers … speak of the presumption of innocence as if it means somehow, that at the time of speaking – that is before an accused has been convicted – the person actually is innocent or, if you like … that the person is not guilty”.

“If that simply means he or she hasn’t yet had pronounced a verdict of guilty and thereafter a conviction entered – so much is true but trivial.”

Walker said when prosecutors signed indictments they were declaring they believed there was enough evidence to allege the commission of an offence, notwithstanding the accused’s presumption of innocence.

But Walker said it would be a “terrible thing if we thought that everybody was thereby compelled to regard them as innocent”.

“The prosecutor mustn’t – that would be appalling. I hope the police who investigate and put the brief together … don’t think so either, that would be appalling.

“In short, the presumption of innocence involves an open mind about the outcome of a trial but not the magical thinking that says until a person is convicted they were innocent, they should never have been tried.

“Guilt of a crime … is only ever of conduct which was criminal at the time it was committed – and you’ve been guilty, as a matter of English law, since you’ve committed the offence.”

Walker said “presumption of innocence” should be “banished from discourse concerning people who are the objects of criminal process”.

“They are presumed innocent, it doesn’t mean they are innocent.”

In May the Rule of Law Education Centre incorrectly billed Porter as a speaker at the conference, which promises to “examine recent challenges to this doctrine [the presumption of innocence] and the threat this poses to the Australian concept of a ‘fair go’”.

A spokesman for Porter told Guardian Australia that he “hadn’t actually accepted” an invitation and organisers had “got ahead of themselves”.

In the event description organisers claim the “presumption of guilt” is a “dangerous new doctrine on the rise … in an era where public policy is frequently influenced by the latest frenzy on social media”.

The centre said the presumption of innocence should be a bulwark “not just against over-mighty governments, but against those who would side-step the normal law and impugn people who have done nothing wrong”.

It promised the conference would “examine the consequences of allowing this doctrine to be eroded by confining it to the formal processes of criminal justice”.

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism.
From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against r****m and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.

******

Reply
May 25, 2023 17:33:06   #
RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit
 
Byrd wrote:
You are always innocent until proven guilty, regardless of where you are at. No matter where you are, you are not guilty until proven guilty.
You may be charged with a crime arrested and jailed, you still are not guilty until proven so.
If it is proven you are innocent, then you have been falsely accused. Until then you are presumed guilty. but that doesn't mean you are.

If you are innocent until proven guilty then Joe and H****r are innocent.

Reply
May 25, 2023 17:38:51   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
RascalRiley wrote:
If you are innocent until proven guilty then Joe and H****r are innocent.


If you are innocent , then why should you go to court.

Reply
May 25, 2023 19:25:53   #
usmc7
 
Milosia2 wrote:
We haven’t had our I**********nist trial yet .
Being an I**********nist will disallow trump from any public office or government job.
Or access to any government buildings or
Owning any firearms whatsoever.
Oh and of course there’s still the spy trial
About the documents .
Raise your hand if you’re still stupid enough to want this assache any where near the Whitehouse.


Biden had a s**tload of documents found scattered all over DC, is that OK?

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2023 19:27:41   #
usmc7
 
RascalRiley wrote:
If you are innocent until proven guilty then Joe and H****r are innocent.


How about the J-6 defendants, were they given their rights?

Reply
May 25, 2023 19:56:32   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
usmc7 wrote:
How about the J-6 defendants, were they given their rights?


Most were guilty by video .not much to argue there.
Is this your client ?
Yes !
Should we presume his innocence?
Yes .
Again , is this your client ?
Yes.
He has proven his own guilt.

Reply
May 25, 2023 20:03:48   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
usmc7 wrote:
How about the J-6 defendants, were they given their rights?


Since when should we be giving rights to the very people who were intent on o*******wing this government ?
In my book , you have dismissed yourself from the protections of regular citizens.
What’s rights ?
The ones they were trying to o*******w ?
They have no rights , as far as I’m concerned.
I still believe they should all be hanged.
As t*****rs , s******nists , anti American insouciants.
Hang ‘em !!!!
We hanged Saddam Hussein for much less.

Reply
May 25, 2023 20:09:09   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
usmc7 wrote:
Biden had a s**tload of documents found scattered all over DC, is that OK?


This isn’t uncommon for Vice President.
I don’t believe he was selling them to
Saudi Arabia as they are now accusing
Jared Kushner .
was Jared Kushners actions ok ?
What else was sold from trumps basement ?

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2023 20:09:20   #
pescado rojo
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Nope.
The presumption of innocence applies to the courtroom. Within the courtroom you are innocent until proven guilty .
The presumption of innocence does not apply to public opinion.
Once charged , you become the accused .


This explains it better;

Presumption of innocence doesn’t mean a suspect is innocent, leading Sydney barrister warns
This article is more than 1 year old
Bret Walker SC, who represented George Pell and Christian Porter, cautions against ‘magical thinking’
Paul Karp
@Paul_Karp
Tue 15 Jun 2021 22.50 EDT
The high-profile barrister Bret Walker SC has warned that the presumption of innocence doctrine should not be misunderstood to mean that a person is in fact innocent.

Walker told the Rule of Law Education Centre’s Presumption of Guilt conference on Tuesday it would be “terrible” if the presumption of innocence meant everyone was compelled to regard an accused person as innocent until they were convicted.

The barrister said the concept meant instead that the prosecution had “to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused”. He labelled the view that a person was necessarily innocent until they were convicted as a form of “magical thinking”.

Walker is an eminent senior counsel and former independent national security legislation monitor who successfully represented George Pell in his appeal to the high court. He also represented the former attorney general Christian Porter in his defamation case against the ABC, which was discontinued by agreement.

In February the ABC reported that an unnamed cabinet minister had been accused in a dossier sent to Scott Morrison of a sexual assault in 1988 when he was 17 and the alleged victim was 16. Porter then identified himself as the minister, and strenuously denied the allegation.

Quietly and confidently, George Pell's barrister tried to unravel the prosecution's case
David Marr
Read more
In March the prime minister declared that Porter was an “innocent man under our law” because he had never been charged with or convicted of sexual assault.

Police had begun an investigation but concluded there was “insufficient admissible evidence” to continue after the complainant withdrew from the process, then took her life.

On Tuesday Walker said that “unfortunately both politically and socially in everyday language people – many of them lawyers … speak of the presumption of innocence as if it means somehow, that at the time of speaking – that is before an accused has been convicted – the person actually is innocent or, if you like … that the person is not guilty”.

“If that simply means he or she hasn’t yet had pronounced a verdict of guilty and thereafter a conviction entered – so much is true but trivial.”

Walker said when prosecutors signed indictments they were declaring they believed there was enough evidence to allege the commission of an offence, notwithstanding the accused’s presumption of innocence.

But Walker said it would be a “terrible thing if we thought that everybody was thereby compelled to regard them as innocent”.

“The prosecutor mustn’t – that would be appalling. I hope the police who investigate and put the brief together … don’t think so either, that would be appalling.

“In short, the presumption of innocence involves an open mind about the outcome of a trial but not the magical thinking that says until a person is convicted they were innocent, they should never have been tried.

“Guilt of a crime … is only ever of conduct which was criminal at the time it was committed – and you’ve been guilty, as a matter of English law, since you’ve committed the offence.”

Walker said “presumption of innocence” should be “banished from discourse concerning people who are the objects of criminal process”.

“They are presumed innocent, it doesn’t mean they are innocent.”

In May the Rule of Law Education Centre incorrectly billed Porter as a speaker at the conference, which promises to “examine recent challenges to this doctrine [the presumption of innocence] and the threat this poses to the Australian concept of a ‘fair go’”.

A spokesman for Porter told Guardian Australia that he “hadn’t actually accepted” an invitation and organisers had “got ahead of themselves”.

In the event description organisers claim the “presumption of guilt” is a “dangerous new doctrine on the rise … in an era where public policy is frequently influenced by the latest frenzy on social media”.

The centre said the presumption of innocence should be a bulwark “not just against over-mighty governments, but against those who would side-step the normal law and impugn people who have done nothing wrong”.

It promised the conference would “examine the consequences of allowing this doctrine to be eroded by confining it to the formal processes of criminal justice”.

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism.
From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against r****m and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.

******
Nope. br The presumption of innocence applies to t... (show quote)


Oh, you couldn't find an American opinion. I don't know how to break the news to you, but Australian law and US law are not the same. I'll bet you didn't know that. You DO realize that Australia is, in fact, it's own separate country and it's laws have no impact on our own? Say what? You didn't know that either?

Reply
May 25, 2023 20:12:19   #
pescado rojo
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Since when should we be giving rights to the very people who were intent on o*******wing this government ?
In my book , you have dismissed yourself from the protections of regular citizens.
What’s rights ?
The ones they were trying to o*******w ?
They have no rights , as far as I’m concerned.
I still believe they should all be hanged.
As t*****rs , s******nists , anti American insouciants.
Hang ‘em !!!!
We hanged Saddam Hussein for much less.


Since you sound just like him, perhaps you should have joined him on the gallows. You keep saying i**********n. There have been over 1000 arrests, and it's been more than 2 years. Mind telling us why there has yet to be a single conviction for "i**********n?" You have no idea what the word means. Like most Liberals, you simply spout crap that you think sounds impressive.

Reply
May 25, 2023 20:28:59   #
Spazazer
 
He tries to stall the system with appeals to save himself. How many times has he claimed bankruptcy? His record speaks for his destructive negligence.
How many Americans lost loved ones because he ignored public health issues surrounding C***D? How long was it before the information was truly disseminated. People actually injected/ingested bleach bc of his crazy statements during the p******c. Yet, he himself got C***D v*****es?!!

Think about it.

Reply
May 25, 2023 20:43:20   #
usmc7
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Most were guilty by video .not much to argue there.
Is this your client ?
Yes !
Should we presume his innocence?
Yes .
Again , is this your client ?
Yes.
He has proven his own guilt.


Most were not guilty by video, as Tucker showed, being taken down by Schumer and c****e/demorats because it showed it was arranged by Piglosi and FBLie. Two thirds of those locked up were NOT guilty of anything!! The demorats are the i**********n guilty party.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.