The verdict is in.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: sine.nomine

. A prosecution begins with solid evidence, and not an assumption of guilt.

...solid evidence that leads law enforcement and prosecutors to believe it leads to an assumption of guilt. You know, just like if everything outside is wet, you can assume that it rained.

Way to quote the dumbest thing that America has to offer in today's society. You can't even come up with your own analogy. Just rinse and repeat.

Screw it, I'll bite. Who are the wet ones here?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Supreme Court established that you do indeed have a right of innocent until proven guilty through the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. The bills of rights is a fundamental addition to the constitution. There has been several Supreme Court casses but the primary one is Coffin v. United States "It is the duty of the judge, in all jurisdictions, when requested, and in some when not requested, to explain the presumption of innocence to the jury in his charge. The usual formula in which this doctrine is expressed is that every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Here's the problem with the Trump trial judges instructions did not include jury instructions explaining to the jury that innocence is presumed and what beyond a reasonable doubt actually means. This is why when an appeals court looks at this very likely it's overturned. A panel of judges do not go on emotions. The other problem is procedural not telling Trumps lawyers what charges is being used to elevate this from mis demeanor to felony until after closing arguments. This meant Trump lawyers could not explain to the jury the intricacies of campaign finance law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here’s one last Fun Fact for you…

Out of all the 27 amendments to the US Constitution, there is only one instance where the same command is used twice.
It’s in the 5th and 14th amendments and it has to do with due process.
It is 11 words.

"deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

a reply to: dragonridr

"It is the duty of the judge, in all jurisdictions, when requested, and in some when not requested, to explain the presumption of innocence to the jury in his charge.

So, you're saying that, in a criminal trial, the jury has the responsibility to assume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty? That doesn't sound like a constitutional right, it sounds like a court rule for jurors, that's impossible to enforce.

There is no explicit constitutional right to the presumption of innocence outside of the criminal courtroom. That is not the case with due process. Due process always applies whenever the government is involved.

a reply to: Vermilion

"deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

And nowhere does it say that anyone has an explicit constitutional right to be presumed innocent, just that guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before one can be punished by the depriving one of life, liberty or property.

A constitutional right isn't dependent on another person's opinion of you.

Jury instructions in case anybody’s interested…

static01.nyt.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

"deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

And nowhere does it say that anyone has an explicit constitutional right to be presumed innocent, just that guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before one can be punished by the depriving one of life, liberty or property.

A constitutional right isn't dependent on another person's opinion of you.

Presumption of innocence is part and parcel of Due Process.
You can’t have Due Process without Presumption of Innocence.

Bummer to see the desperation and double standards of the Democrats out there kick goals. Sounds like there is plenty in this case to appeal on. Getting it done in time and before the next election is the tough part.

The Dems are pushing hard to get some felony charge they can use over Trump to take him of the Ballot in the next election.

a reply to: Mahogani

My question would be, regarding sentencing, could the Judge offer Trump a "lighter" sentence in return for Trump conceding to drop out of the Presidential race?

With his "untouchable" mojo busted, would Trump consider withdrawing in return for his (relative) freedom?

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Mahogani

My question would be, regarding sentencing, could the Judge offer Trump a "lighter" sentence in return for Trump conceding to drop out of the Presidential race?

With his "untouchable" mojo busted, would Trump consider withdrawing in return for his (relative) freedom?

What a great example for the shining beacon on the hill that America espouses. Trump supporters don't enshrine the man, they enshrine the ideals. Literally giving up the presidency to a senile old man is a ridiculous option.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The US would be a pariah state and would be an international laughing stock.

It already is, under Biden.

a reply to: sine.nomine

Was not asking if such a deal would be acceptable to Trump's supporters.


I was wondering if Trump, himself, would consider such an arrangement. He is, after all, well versed in making, and recognizing, "deals" wherever he can. It would be his butt serving whatever sentence that was handed down.

Not any of his supporters.

originally posted by: pianopraze
Feels more like a verdict on how corrupt our Judicial system is becoming.

Rather than a verdict about Trump.

2nd!

originally posted by: 2133Habs
a reply to: DAVID64
This. I'm in Canada and this smells of bull# from up here. What has happened to our once great countries? Rotten from the inside out. Damn shame...

AND

I a praying for Canada too. We see the crazy Castrudeu doing backflips to steal your rights.

a reply to: Vermilion

Presumption of innocence is part and parcel of Due Process.

No it isn't. Due process is whatever process is determined to be lawful for any given set of circumstances where the government is involved.

In getting a driver's license, due process consists of you paying a fee and proving to the DMV that you are legally eligible, demonstrate that you understand the state laws of the road, are capable of legally operating a motor vehicle by demonstrating your driving skill to a government employee in a safe and legal vehicle. Your presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the due process involved in your getting a driver's license, and nobody is assuming you don't need to prove anything to get a driver's license, because you do.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: DAVID64

Guilty on all counts.

Oh dear, there goes his "Teflon Don" title.

This is not over and we all should understand that. It was an un Constitutional proceeding and if allowed to stand our Republic is a Banana one.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: sine.nomine

Was not asking if such a deal would be acceptable to Trump's supporters.


I was wondering if Trump, himself, would consider such an arrangement. He is, after all, well versed in making, and recognizing, "deals" wherever he can. It would be his butt serving whatever sentence that was handed down.

Not any of his supporters.

Consider how the nation would reflect on such a "deal". Bowing to injustice during a presidential race wouldn't fare well. I imagine this verdict won't fare well with the public either.

Merchan will sentence Trump four days before the GOP convention.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No it isn't. Due process is whatever process is determined to be lawful for any given set of circumstances where the government is involved

your ignorance is showing,

The presumption of innocence is one of the elementary principles of due process. It is one of the most important guaranteed rights under any democratic society so much so that every civilized nation contains some form of this principle under their Constitution.
Presumption of Innocence | What You Should Know

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Mahogani

My question would be, regarding sentencing, could the Judge offer Trump a "lighter" sentence in return for Trump conceding to drop out of the Presidential race?

With his "untouchable" mojo busted, would Trump consider withdrawing in return for his (relative) freedom?

The judge could offer that if he were willing to go to jail for election interference. There are laws against that.