The verdict is in.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That would be the 8th Amendment.

Please define excessive bail and explain how it relates to the presumption of innocence. Explain how someone could lose their liberty for an unproven charge, and how the presumption of innocence is a still being honored as an inalienable constitutional right.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

(1) counsel in the case ot]er than the District Attorney,

The DA is fat Alvin Bragg.

a reply to: Vermilion

Yes, I get that now. Thanks.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No. Take a Civics class. I am not your teacher but Google is your friend.

If you do not understand the basic principals of the 5th and 8th Amendment there is nothing else to discuss.

Peace Sook

a reply to: matafuchs

You do not understand that the presumption of innocence isn't an inalienable constitutional right. That's been proven again and again, without any reasonable rebuttal, just your pie in the sky platitudes.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's nice. There's nothing in your link that proves that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right. Because it isn't. The presumption of innocence is a platitude, not a right.

i guess your ignorance knows no end.

only about about a million lawyers, which i'm pretty sure your not say other wise. although the phrase Presumption of Innocence doesn't appear in any amendments, the premise is covered by the 5th and 14th amendment and numerous Supreme court rulings.

The phrase “presumption of innocence” is not in the Constitution. However, the Fifth Amendment has the due process clause. The Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states. Due process generally means the government cannot deprive you of your freedom or property unless they follow the proper procedures. Your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to due process. The presumption of innocence is a constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.
Is the Presumption of Innocence in the Constitution?

and from the U.S courts system,

3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.

The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The defendant before you, [__________], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of [his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden never shifts to [defendant]. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements of the crime[s] charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Defendant] has the right to rely upon the failure or inability of the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged against [him/her].

If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, it is your duty to acquit [him/her] of that crime. On the other hand, if, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, you should vote to convict [him/her].

3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

your dismissed and your ignorance is not excused.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Well thank goodness, paying Melania's stylist hundreds of thousands, and the millions going to Alina Habba's luxury vacations and designer handbags is not cheap. Glad people are stepping up with what they can spare from their hard earned money and supporting their family for this.

Good thing the Debt/Jealousy/Revenge based hate Society is accepted these days. 😊

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's nice. There's nothing in your link that proves that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right. Because it isn't. The presumption of innocence is a platitude, not a right.

i guess your ignorance knows no end.

only about about a million lawyers, which i'm pretty sure your not say other wise. although the phrase Presumption of Innocence doesn't appear in any amendments, the premise is covered by the 5th and 14th amendment and numerous Supreme court rulings.

The phrase “presumption of innocence” is not in the Constitution. However, the Fifth Amendment has the due process clause. The Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states. Due process generally means the government cannot deprive you of your freedom or property unless they follow the proper procedures. Your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to due process. The presumption of innocence is a constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.
Is the Presumption of Innocence in the Constitution?

and from the U.S courts system,

3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.

The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The defendant before you, [__________], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of [his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden never shifts to [defendant]. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements of the crime[s] charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Defendant] has the right to rely upon the failure or inability of the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged against [him/her].

If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, it is your duty to acquit [him/her] of that crime. On the other hand, if, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, you should vote to convict [him/her].

3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

your dismissed and your ignorance is not excused.

Just incredible.
There is 8 or 9 pages in this thread of her denying anyone has a right to “the presumption of innocence” because it’s not in the Constitution word for word.

It’s one of the basic principles of the US judicial system and has been for over 200 years.

originally posted by: UKTruth


There was no campaign finance violation.
Thus the rest of your reasoning is irrelevant - as was the prosecutions for the same reason.

Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations and if you've read the pdf of the General Counsel, they lay out clearly the statutes that they state both Trump and Cohen violated with reasoning. I've posted the link twice now. Again, it was stopped from going into further investigation, which again I linked to the who and why it was stopped. Hint, it wasn't because they didn't think Trump did it.

a reply to: RazorV66

ust incredible. There is 8 or 9 pages in this thread of her denying anyone has a right to “the presumption of innocence” because it’s not in the Constitution word for word. It’s one of the basic principles of the US judicial system and has been for over 200 years.

some people will aruge until they are blue in the face and will not admit their wrong.

my grandpa had a saying,

a hard head, makes for a soft a@@.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's why many traffic laws taken for granted are actually unconstitutional 😃

But in your parking ticket example, a person can take it to court and then the municipality must prove your are guilty of breaking whatever law they wrote the ticket for. Due Process is alive!!!!! 😀

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, he's had a right old go at the Judge in breach of the gagging order. He's been warned with jail if he did that again, I believe?

His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

I certainly hope so.

He really needs to be put in jail -- at least for a short time.

As I read somewhere -- nothing gets through to him -- and he needs to be put in jail as determent for the next "Trump".

If he isn't strongly reprimanded -- someone else will think they can get away with it.

a reply to: frogs453

And they also said they were satisfied the case was disposed of when Cohen was convicted. 😊

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: UKTruth


There was no campaign finance violation.
Thus the rest of your reasoning is irrelevant - as was the prosecutions for the same reason.

Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations and if you've read the pdf of the General Counsel, they lay out clearly the statutes that they state both Trump and Cohen violated with reasoning. I've posted the link twice now. Again, it was stopped from going into further investigation, which again I linked to the who and why it was stopped. Hint, it wasn't because they didn't think Trump did it.

I have read all the documents.
There was no campaign finance violation
Cohen got pulled because they needed him as a piece to get Trump - no other reason.
If what happened is a campaign violation then many more people would be indicted for it - but they are not.

Celebrate what happened if you like if you hate Trump that much, but don't think you can justify it - it's not going to fly.
This was a politically motivated corruption of the law.
The defence was not even allowed to bring witnesses to explain campaign finance laws to the jury.
Again - don't try and gaslight this sham.
One piece of political lawfare - Cohen - does not legitimise another piece of political lawfare.

For clarity:

The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair.

Cohen was convicted in 2018 of lying to Congress, tax evasion and other charges relating to the payments to Daniels and other women. He served three years in prison.

His attorney said Cohen testified in court that the payment was made “for the principal purpose of influencing an election.”

The FEC’s Office of General Counsel issued a report in December finding that there was “reason to believe” that Cohen and the Trump campaign knowingly and willfully violated campaign finance law.

However, the FEC said that it failed by a 2-2 vote to prove any of the parties violated campaign finance law.

Republican Commissioners James “Trey” Trainor and Sean Cooksey voted to dismiss the matter. Republican Vice Chairman Allen Dickerson recused himself, while independent Commissioner Steven Walther did not vote.

Dickerson and Cooksey wrote in a statement that they felt Cohen had already been punished criminally and the matter was “not the best use of agency resources.”

“The public record is complete with respect to the conduct at issue in these complaints, and Mr. Cohen has been punished by the government of the United States for the conduct at issue in these matters,” they said.

In a separate statement, Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub and Commission Chair Shana Broussard said the probe should have been continued after the general counsel said there was reason to believe campaign finance law was broken.

“To conclude that a payment, made 13 days before Election Day to hush up a suddenly newsworthy 10-year-old story, was not campaign-related, without so much as conducting an investigation, defies reality,” the commissioners wrote.

During an appearance on Cohen’s podcast “Mea Cupa” in February, Cohen apologized to Daniels for the “needless pain” that was caused involving the payments.

Daniels has since sued Trump for defamation over his denial of her allegations and the hush money payments.

This was investigated and the FEC, the people responsible for deciding - ruled against a prosecution - therefore there was no crime.

Let me repeat for extra clarity - there was no 'other crime' that was the entire basis for Bragg's case.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, he's had a right old go at the Judge in breach of the gagging order. He's been warned with jail if he did that again, I believe?

His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

I certainly hope so.

He really needs to be put in jail -- at least for a short time.

As I read somewhere -- nothing gets through to him -- and he needs to be put in jail as determent for the next "Trump".

If he isn't strongly reprimanded -- someone else will think they can get away with it.

Get away with what?

Defending themselves from a scam trial put on by paid opposition for the Democrat con artists?

Again, you are in one of 2 groups….you either know the trial was a scam or you are too stupid to know it was a scam.
There’s no other choice.

originally posted by: Annee
If he isn't strongly reprimanded -- someone else will think they can get away with it.

Get away with what? Do you know what law Trump broke?
I bet you don't .... cuz' he didn't break any.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, he's had a right old go at the Judge in breach of the gagging order. He's been warned with jail if he did that again, I believe?

His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

I certainly hope so.

He really needs to be put in jail -- at least for a short time.

As I read somewhere -- nothing gets through to him -- and he needs to be put in jail as determent for the next "Trump".

If he isn't strongly reprimanded -- someone else will think they can get away with it.

Get away with what?

Defending themselves from a scam trial put on by paid opposition for the Democrat con artists?

Again, you are in one of 2 groups….you either know the trial was a scam or you are too stupid to know it was a scam.
There’s no other choice.

The irony is that several people have 'got away with it' - like Hillary Clinton for logging the Russian fake dossier as legal expenses.
But the likes of Annee will never see that.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, he's had a right old go at the Judge in breach of the gagging order. He's been warned with jail if he did that again, I believe?

His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

I certainly hope so.

He really needs to be put in jail -- at least for a short time.

As I read somewhere -- nothing gets through to him -- and he needs to be put in jail as determent for the next "Trump".

If he isn't strongly reprimanded -- someone else will think they can get away with it.

Get away with what?

Defending themselves from a scam trial put on by paid opposition for the Democrat con artists?

Again, you are in one of 2 groups….you either know the trial was a scam or you are too stupid to know it was a scam.
There’s no other choice.

The irony is that several people have 'got away with it' - like Hillary Clinton for logging the Russian fake dossier as legal expenses.
But the likes of Annee will never see that.

One of the hosts of Annee’s favorite show The View said this today….

"I got so excited, I started leaking a little bit," co-host Joy Behar said upon hearing the news.

She pissed her pants because she was so excited that Trump was found guilty.

That’s beyond normal TDS, that’s a severe mental illness symptom.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Annee
If he isn't strongly reprimanded -- someone else will think they can get away with it.

Get away with what? Do you know what law Trump broke?
I bet you don't .... cuz' he didn't break any.

I am not required to agree with you.

What laws Trump broke have been repeatedly posted on this site.

Your refusal to accept fact is your issue.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, he's had a right old go at the Judge in breach of the gagging order. He's been warned with jail if he did that again, I believe?

His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

I certainly hope so.

He really needs to be put in jail -- at least for a short time.

As I read somewhere -- nothing gets through to him -- and he needs to be put in jail as determent for the next "Trump".

If he isn't strongly reprimanded -- someone else will think they can get away with it.

Get away with what?

Defending themselves from a scam trial put on by paid opposition for the Democrat con artists?

Again, you are in one of 2 groups….you either know the trial was a scam or you are too stupid to know it was a scam.
There’s no other choice.

The irony is that several people have 'got away with it' - like Hillary Clinton for logging the Russian fake dossier as legal expenses.
But the likes of Annee will never see that.

And how about the media companies suppressing the various Biden scandals immediately prior to the election.
Seems like a campaign contribution if there ever was one.