The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[lawgator1]

Did he do this? Or is this another projection of plans for those who vote not guilty?

I was just making the point that the iudge does have some authority to prevent interference in the process if that's what he thinks is happening.

 

[LouderVol]

You mean the defense defends the accused and proves their innocence?

Wow!!!! So that's how it works.
That will be news to some posters in this thread.

here is what I quoted @luthervol

 

[LouderVol]

double post*

 

[luthervol]

Cheerlead for this all you want but anyone who isn't a partisan wingnut knows this isn't about upholding the law. For those complaining about Jan 6th and the precident that set for our politics this is a bad look. Intellectual honesty be damned.

This coming from someone who doesn't care what happens to Trump.

It is about upholding the law. Trump is a lifelong criminal who has made a sport out of breaking laws for his benefit and weaseling his way out through lies, intimidation, threats, bribery, money, and power.

It's exactly like Capone and the tax evasion charge.

 

[luthervol]

here is what I quoted @luthervol

The defense will prove innocence every time if they can.
That is not saying that they have to....they don't....I know that....
But if the can, they certainly will.
If they prove their client cannot be guilty, then they are proving their innocence.

 

[GVF]

I did not ask you if you agree he did, or did not break the law. I am asking whether both can be true: the prosecution is motivated by politics AND Trump committed the crimes.

So when does Biden and Son get indicted?

 

[evillawyer]

 

[GVF]

It is about upholding the law. Trump is a lifelong criminal who has made a sport out of breaking laws for his benefit and weaseling his way out through lies, intimidation, threats, bribery, money, and power.

It's exactly like Capone and the tax evasion charge.

Ditto for the current POTUS and Son.

 

[LouderVol]

The defense will prove innocence every time if they can.
That is not saying that they have to....they don't....I know that....
But if the can, they certainly will.
If they prove their client cannot be guilty, then they are proving their innocence.

if they can. but that's not their job. Their job is to show that the prosecution can't prove guilt. and when it can't be proven one way or the other, the default is innocence. That's why people are found "not guilty" instead of "innocent", because they are already innocent.

its a VERY important distinction. one which I know you don't care about with Trump

 

[LouderVol]

for paying a whore and making her sign an NDA? I was told Trump was the first one to do these things.

or do they mean use campaign funds for personal use? I know Stacey Abrams has had that problem in the past...

 

[JOEY’S ALL VOL !!!]

It is about upholding the law. Trump is a lifelong criminal who has made a sport out of breaking laws for his benefit and weaseling his way out through lies, intimidation, threats, bribery, money, and power.

It's exactly like Capone and the tax evasion charge.

So to counter balance that, you vote to elect another career criminal that does the exact same and worse. Brilliant strategy there.

 

[volgr]

It is about upholding the law.

Usually perverting the law doesn't equal upholding the law...but maybe in your world it does.

 

[luthervol]

So to counter balance that, you vote to elect another career criminal that does the exact same and worse. Brilliant strategy there.

First - he doesn't do the exact same and worse
Second - I didn't support Biden in the primary and would have voted for a rock over Trump in the general.

 

[KB5252]

It is about upholding the law. Trump is a lifelong criminal who has made a sport out of breaking laws for his benefit and weaseling his way out through lies, intimidation, threats, bribery, money, and power.

It's exactly like Capone and the tax evasion charge.

And the agency charged with prosecuting looked at this situation and declined to prosecute.

So instead, this DA who won't prosecute slam dunk crime against his citizens is playing in gray areas to form a case for political purpose. The fact that he brought dozens of chargers indicates he's throwing the book at him and hoping something sticks with the jury.

As I stated I don't care what happens to a Trump....... And that's just the point, anyone who doesn't have a personal vendetta sees this for what it is.

 

[luthervol]

Usually perverting the law doesn't equal upholding the law...but maybe in your world it does.

?????? Are you talking about Trump's lifetime of perverting the law?

How many frivolous lawsuits has he filed? (1,900?)

 

[KB5252]

The defense will prove innocence every time if they can.
That is not saying that they have to....they don't....I know that....
But if the can, they certainly will.
If they prove their client cannot be guilty, then they are proving their innocence.

No, they are attempting to create reasonable doubt......I find it odd an educator would attempt to muddy the water on this. Creating reasonable doubt and proving innocence , they are two very distinct things.

 

[luthervol]

No, they are attempting to create reasonable doubt......I find it odd an educator would attempt to muddy the water on this. Creating reasonable doubt and proving innocence , they are two very distinct things.

Why would a defense choose to create reasonable doubt if they could easily prove innocence?
They wouldn't.......that's just simply stupid.

Here's an example that may help.

Person A is on trial for a murder that is known to have taken place at Huey's Bar at 9:43.
The defense lawyer has irrefutable proof that his client could not have been at Huey's at 9:43; thereby proving his client's innocence.

But the defense decides not to present that evidence because it is not their job to prove their client's innocence.
Really stupid.

 

[KB5252]

Why would a defense choose to create reasonable doubt if they could easily prove innocence?
They wouldn't.......that's just simply stupid.

Here's an example that may help.

Person A is on trial for a murder that is known to have taken place at Huey's Bar at 9:43.
The defense lawyer has irrefutable proof that his client could not have been at Huey's at 9:43; thereby proving his client's innocence.

But the defense decides not to present that evidence because it is not their job to prove their client's innocence.
Really stupid.

I thought you were attempting to defend Pelosi's asinine statement, perhaps I missed something.

 

[luthervol]

I thought you were attempting to defend Pelosi's asinine statement, perhaps I missed something.

I said earlier she should have stated it differently.
But every defendant does indeed have the right to prove their innocence, but they also are not obligated to use that right.
My position is simply that if a person is on trial and can prove their innocence, it would make sense to do it and not leave it in the hands of a jury to decide if the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that you were guilty.

Stated another way, plenty of innocent people have been convicted, had they been able to prove their innocence, they would have been insane not to have done so.

 

[GVF]

Why would a defense choose to create reasonable doubt if they could easily prove innocence?
They wouldn't.......that's just simply stupid.

Here's an example that may help.

Person A is on trial for a murder that is known to have taken place at Huey's Bar at 9:43.
The defense lawyer has irrefutable proof that his client could not have been at Huey's at 9:43; thereby proving his client's innocence.

But the defense decides not to present that evidence because it is not their job to prove their client's innocence.
Really stupid.

I'm not ware of any lawyer or investigator that would not present a irrefutable alibi if it exists. Matlock and Monk always went for the solid.

 

[luthervol]

I'm not ware of any lawyer or investigator that would not present a irrefutable alibi if it exists. Matlock and Monk always went for the solid.

Exactly. Because you will prove innocence if you are able.

 

[GVF]

Exactly. Because you will prove innocence if you are able.

But, the crux of the intent legally is to only provide reasonable doubt, since a jury is to make decisions beyond reasonable doubt. Kind of a Biden point here. Meaning there is no point. A lawyer is prepared to argue both angles.

 

[OrangeBoro]

I sure hope we hold every politician to the same standard. If we do then Biden will be arrested the day he leaves office and his corrupt family even sooner. I have no faith we will though. This is all about getting the guy who dared give a F you to the establishment

 

[lawgator1]

Whataboutism and deflection have hit all time highs itt.

 

[LouderVol]

Whataboutism and deflection have hit all time highs itt.

Not even close. Elections are way worse.