Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

If you haven't, then cirumspection would seem more in order than smug self assurance.

 

I could not care LESS about viewer ratings. The ONLY thing I care about is the rule of law.

You have a knack for long irrelevant posts. This is why I usually don't even bother to open them. I'm not sure why I bothered opening this one.

 

Right! You have an obligation to READ it. You just made it clear that reading is not what you do. And that you're here only to repeat the political dogma you see on Fox (and similar)

 

Yet you are only interested in holding conservatives accountable and providing one sided claims. Funny how that works.

You have a knack for running from posted information you can't dispute that proves your OP is filled with false information or half truths.
If you could dispute it, you would be all over it.

 

Interesting, so in all of that vaunted " I did my research", it didn't occur to you that the only standard that matters is what happens through the court, not your dissembling about "overwhelming.. blah blah blah"... Cause at that point, you've simple denied the courts do in fact exist. So, if a court doesn't deliver that verdict your agenda demands, I suppose you'll be deeply hurt. But chin up sport, When you think of how this has all played out, wait till a republican AG goes after Biden. Should be you leading the charge and cheering then, right?

 

So, let's see. You must also believe in the PF-Kangaroo court of public opinion when it came to the KNOWN facts and evidence surrounding Hillary Clinton's misuse of classified information. Therefore, one can safely conclude by using your own measures and rule of thumb, she was a proven criminal. Good to see you don't behold a double standard when it comes to all.

Oh but wait . . . Not too long ago, you wrote this when it comes to her "innocence"

 

The desperation of attempting to justify the lefts political witch hunt.

Just claim everybody else are binary thinkers. Quick, MSNBC has a new agenda for you, better turn it on.

 

I don't watch Fox. Why do you assume that anyone who doesn't see the world as you do to be a Fox News watcher? (As if I didn't know.)

And I do read. As to reading all posts, let's just say I'm ... selective. There's a lot of other opinionated drivel that I don't read, so don't be offended.

And no, it is not apparent at all that you would grant anyone the p/innocence, in court or out of court. Au contraire, your posts here render you unsuitable to serve on Trump's jury. Imagine the judge asking you, under oath (and he would do so), "Mr. Golem, will you keep an open mind in this trial and presume Mr. Trump innocent until you have heard ALL the evidence, or are you already convinced that Mr. Trump is guilty?"

You really should be ashamed that you'd have to answer, "No."

I seem to recall (and you should be flattered), some earlier post of yours where you claimed that "Now Trump will have to answer for his crimes!", or words to that effect. That is NOT what a trial is for. If it were, there'd be be need for a trial!

Only medieval inquisitors and Trump haters talk like that.

 

You're providing an answer to a question that no one asked.

Everyone knows the "freedoms" that someone has on a message board.

The concern is the belief among Democrats that the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the prosecutor.

The most recent, and intentionally blatant misrepresentation of this is from MaveRack's own Twitter post a few days ago,

"No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence."​

Most of us, even those here who do not have a law degree, should understand the basic concept that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction will not stand.

Personally, I hope Trump is convicted... this will blast wide-open the door for fundraising, and it will literally ensure that he's elected president in 2024. There seems to be this idea among Democrats that if Trump is convicted, he will no longer be allowed to run for President... which, maybe you can help me... as a current Democrat, where this comes from? I see nothing in the Constitution that states this.

 

Not to me. To me knowing that there is a criminal running to be President of the United States is equally important. But if it's all that matters to you, then I'm sure you're thrilled that Trump will have his day in court.

Oh... and let me make note for future reference, that you have stated that the ONLY thing that matters to you is what happens through the court. That piece of knowledge should come in very handy the next time we discuss things like "lock her up!" or "lock him up!" and the person you want locked up is not your orange idol.

 

Comey may have been right when he said "No reasonable prosecutor would charge her." So the democrats simply found an unreasonable one to indict Trump.

 

Who's Hillary Clin.... Oh! You mean the most exonerated person in history. I would definitely extend the thought that, if there is "proof" against her, it would be "proven". But... right-wing prosecutors keep exonerating her! I don't particularly like Hillary. But... what can we do....every time we get all excited thinking "Finally! THIS time... there is evidence!" your guys come out and publicly exonerate her faster than we can say "Lock her u... oh no!"..... And this keeps happening again and again... Frustrating!

 

Of course you do! You just don't know it because you receive Fox nonsense from another part of their echo-chamber. I watch Fox sometimes. And then I hear exactly the same talking points all over the radio, blogs, printed wingnut papers,... and finally here. The whole process can take just a few minutes. It doesn't matter where you get your talking points from, they are the same Fox nonsense.

My arguments are a whole that are more than the sum of its parts. If you read only a part, you're not getting it. And I can ALWAYS spot when somebody doesn't read. Because they ask about something I ALREADY commented. In your case, it's been very obvious.

I would DEFINITELY keep an open mind. But I can't unlearn what I have already learned. So, whether I want to or not, facts are facts, and my judgement will be based on ALL the facts I know. Keeping an open mind means that if either the defense or the prosecutor shows that the facts I have seen are not real, I would immediately accommodate the new facts.

Now, a caveat, most of the research I have done deals with other crimes: January 6, his theft of the Mar-a-Lago documents, his crimes proven on the Mueller Report, ... and others. Not that I haven't researched Stormy Daniels but it was not at the top of my list.

And, BTW, if I DID have to say (though I don't) that I could not keep an open mind. That is NOT a sign of dishonesty. It would be the opposite. I guess to be a Trump loyalist, you really need to have the concept of "shame" really all twisted in your head. I mean... to support a guy who separated children from their family with no intention of ever reuniting them really does require to completely redefine the concept of "shame" in the mind of his supporters.

Gibberish! How can he answer for his crimes if there isn't a trial? I have researched and have shown proof that he's a proven criminal. A trial is NECESSARY to hold him accountable for his crimes.

You are again making the same mistake that the OP dispels. It's as if you thought that looking at the evidence that Trump is a criminal would somehow magically land him in jail. You can relax! It doesn't

Is that what you called those who screamed "Lock her up!" against Hillary Clinton? I must have missed those posts.

 

Except the cases are entirely different. Please try looking into this and thinking it over. Pretending they are the same is complete garbage.

 

Exonerated? Is that what you took away from what Comey said about the crimes she committed? He simply said no reasonable prosecutor would charge her. That's not an exoneration.

 

I thought you said it wasn't okay to say that someone is a criminal until after they've been tried and convicted? Hm, funny how fast those standards changed in exactly the same way that I predicted.

 

What the hell are you talking about? What "freedoms"?

Now YOU are making a dumb assumption that nobody has made. Even worse, one that the OP dispels.

Why? Please explain.

 

This is the pig / mud / dirty part of the discussion. You are the one that was discussing forums, "This forum is not a court of law. And we are not the government." The point was that we have the right (in so far as the owner of the forum agrees or supports) to say what we want. That's the freedom, but it means nothing. That's why I put it in quotes.

I am actually not making an assumption that no one has made. I literally quoted something that Nancy Pelosi directly said... where she basically said that Trump will have "the opportunity to prove his innocence."

(they call her MaveRack because she went to Taiwan, it's a funny meme that shows her in the cockpit of the Top Gun F-14 in her swimsuit picture)


By the way, small point I wanted to make about your use of quotes. In American English, the punctuation goes before the end quote, without exception. If you are non-American, speaking British or International English, then it's fine to put the period or "?" after the quote. But here in the United States, it goes before. Thank you...

 

If you consider clear-cut PROOF "unreasonable", that is.

 

Oh come on (man). Neither the FEC, nor the DOJ thought there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump. Do you think Bragg is a legal genius?

 

I do not watch Fox News. So sorry. If inadvertently receiving their info or opinions indirectly from another source makes one a Fox Watcher, you have distorted the word beyond all recognition. By your definition, I watch North Korean TV also. "Of course you do!" LOL

You would definitely not "keep" an open mind in Trump's trial, because it is -- clearly -- already closed.

And yes, you would have to say, during voir dire, whether your mind were already made up. Either the judge or defense counsel would ask you that, or words to that effect, and you could not be disingenuous and cagey as you are being now. Well ... you could, but you'd never make it onto the jury.

No, you don't "answer for your crimes" in an American court until you are convicted. You are thinking, unsurprisingly, of a medieval court of Inquisition. In America, you answer charges.

Tell the judge when you are tapped for jury service that you have "shown proof that he's a proven criminal!" and see how far onto the jury that gets you.

Look, you are wasting everyone's time with this demented inquisition of yours. Thank God you won't be on the jury.

I'll leave you with two things and then I need to spend my time debating reasonable people: 1) I never said "lock her up", or even accused HRC of any crime. As I sit here, I can't recall having criticized her at all; 2) I did not say you were dishonest. I do say that you are prejudiced.

 

Yes! 100%

Of course that's an exoneration. What is it if not? The only reason it would not be reasonable to prosecute somebody is because they didn't commit a crime. Otherwise it would be unreasonable to say that NO reasonable prosecutor would charge her.

I mean, according to you Trump is innocent.... and they are prosecuting him. So, in your narrative, even an innocent person could be prosecuted.

 

Which ignores human nature. There are going to be people who commit crimes. Always. Which is why you need to live by more than just one axiom. Not that you would know anything about it.

Depends on how narrow you want to be. How you want to manipulate the statistics. You no doubt are referring to named politicians hence your "high level figures" comment. Of which Republicans make up the majority. However, if you're talking about over all then the majority of people in prison vote Democrat. You know this, which is why you tried to use narrowed statistics to make an irrelevant point to score some sort of meaningless political point. You will of course no doubt delete half of my post and claim to be the winner to further score that imaginary point.

 

Well, I can see that quoting exactly what Comey said would be a waste of my time. I'll simply let you do your own research instead of doing it for you.

 

You're right on the merits, but I hold that a period belongs at the end of your ellipsis.