The Presumption Of Guilt

[Lutherf]

The FBI investigated Trump and his campaign staff in 2016 because they presumed that he was guilty of coordination with Russia. They will tell you that it was merely a "Counterintelligence Investigation" and that it was necessary for national security but there was literally NOTHING on which to base the assumption that there was coordination.

Adam Schiff and the Democrats in congress pursued impeachment of Trump because they presumed he had committed an act of campaign fraud through his discussion with the Ukranian president. Schiff LITERALLY substituted his own words for Trump's words, pronounced the presumption of guilt based on those words and prosecuted the case against Trump.

In several police incidents we have seen the presumption that cops are guilty of racially motivated violence against black suspects. Local District Attorneys have levied charges even before investigations are complete and in many cases the charging statements include the presumption of guilt.

We have a militia in Michigan that is accused of attempting to kidnap governor Whitmer. On this site right now we have users calling to investigate all militias, if not all white, male gun owners, because, as far as they are concerned, it's reasonable to presume that anyone associated with any militia or Constitutional preservation type movement is likely guilty of a similar type crime.

If Democrats take power in November can we expect more of this type of "justice"? Is this kind of thing Constitutional? How far removed from "thought crime" or a "police state" is this kind of justice? Is it even justice?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Investigating people is not a presumption of guilt. It's something that this society has always done since the founding when there are questionable actions.

 

[Lutherf]

Investigating people is not a presumption of guilt. It's something that this society has always done since the founding when there are questionable actions.

To your thinking, should there be any limits regarding who can be investigated, what they can be investigated for and what methods can be used during the investigation? For example, if an ex girlfriend accuses you of holding kiddie porn but presents no evidence other than the accusation is it appropriate for the cops to confiscate your electronic devices and search them, search your home, investigate at your place of business and interview business associates, friends and neighbors, go through your bank records, credit card bills and any other financial records you might have? If you happen to be a public figure is it reasonable that all the investigative activities be made public so that the public could be reassured that the investigation was on the up and up?

 

[Slartibartfast]

To your thinking, should there be any limits regarding who can be investigated, what they can be investigated for and what methods can be used during the investigation? For example, if an ex girlfriend accuses you of holding kiddie porn but presents no evidence other than the accusation is it appropriate for the cops to confiscate your electronic devices and search them, search your home, investigate at your place of business and interview business associates, friends and neighbors, go through your bank records, credit card bills and any other financial records you might have? If you happen to be a public figure is it reasonable that all the investigative activities be made public so that the public could be reassured that the investigation was on the up and up?

If people appear to do something illegal they should probably have that situation investigated.

This is well established in law. If personal records are needed, then usually you involve a judge who makes that determination with something called a warrant. This seems to hold true even for politicians.

 

[Lutherf]

If people appear to do something illegal they should probably have that situation investigated.

This is well established in law. If personal records are needed, then usually you involve a judge who makes that determination with something called a warrant. This seems to hold true even for politicians.

What if they don't appear to be doing anything illegal? Lots of criminals prefer to keep their activity on the DL so it can be hard to recognize any illegal activity. How much evidence of a crime should be required before an investigation gets rolling? For example, if there is a gun show in town and it's known that many criminals go to gun shows to buy their guns then is it reasonable to collect the license plate information of every car in the parking lot, run the names through a crime database and then keep those names on file just in case an incident involving guns comes up?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What if they don't appear to be doing anything illegal? Lots of criminals prefer to keep their activity on the DL so it can be hard to recognize any illegal activity. How much evidence of a crime should be required before an investigation gets rolling? For example, if there is a gun show in town and it's known that many criminals go to gun shows to buy their guns then is it reasonable to collect the license plate information of every car in the parking lot, run the names through a crime database and then keep those names on file just in case an incident involving guns comes up?

Then generally if sufficient evidence cannot be found for a warrant, the process would generally mean that one isn't granted.

 

[Lutherf]

Then generally if sufficient evidence cannot be found for a warrant, the process would generally mean that one isn't granted.

Well we know THAT isn't true. The FISC, for example, is a total rubber stamp for the FBI and that warrant process can be manipulated easily as long as there is political agreement to do so. The same can absolutely be done at the state and local levels. All one needs to do is find an agreeable judge and the warrants can come out for any reason whatsoever.

Here's an example of what happens when judges abuse their position - https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/
Judges are generally only accountable to other judges so if a judge wants a particular investigation to go forward then why not sign the warrant? Let's say, speaking purely hypothetically because we all know such a thing could never happen, what if a judge and a local DA and a local police chief all had a certain political agenda and decided to go really hard against certain people while leaving others alone? Is it possible that a situation like that could end up with a lot of warrants and a lot of arrests for, let's say, black citizens instead of white ones?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well we know THAT isn't true. The FISC, for example, is a total rubber stamp for the FBI and that warrant process can be manipulated easily as long as there is political agreement to do so. The same can absolutely be done at the state and local levels. All one needs to do is find an agreeable judge and the warrants can come out for any reason whatsoever.

Here's an example of what happens when judges abuse their position - https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/
Judges are generally only accountable to other judges so if a judge wants a particular investigation to go forward then why not sign the warrant? Let's say, speaking purely hypothetically because we all know such a thing could never happen, what if a judge and a local DA and a local police chief all had a certain political agenda and decided to go really hard against certain people while leaving others alone? Is it possible that a situation like that could end up with a lot of warrants and a lot of arrests for, let's say, black citizens instead of white ones?

That's why I hedged my point with the word generally. In practice there can be problems.

 

[Lutherf]

That's why I hedged my point with the word generally. In practice there can be problems.

So, since you agree that the judicial system and the associated investigatory functions can be abused, do you also agree that the presumption of guilt is a bad thing and that we should really go the other way and presume suspects are innocent until we have some SUBSTANTIAL indication that they are not?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So, since you agree that the judicial system and the associated investigatory functions can be abused, do you also agree that the presumption of guilt is a bad thing and that we should really go the other way and presume suspects are innocent until we have some SUBSTANTIAL indication that they are not?

No, I would not. It simply means that there should be oversight and in the case you mentioned there never was due to the need for government secrets, which was its problem.

 

[Utility Man]

 

[Lutherf]

No, I would not. It simply means that there should be oversight and in the case you mentioned there never was due to the need for government secrets, which was its problem.

So...who would provide the oversight and what would prevent the overseers from being equally as corrupt as the politicians and the enforcers of the law? Do you really believe that it's a good idea to have the government oversee itself?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So...who would provide the oversight and what would prevent the overseers from being equally as corrupt as the politicians and the enforcers of the law? Do you really believe that it's a good idea to have the government oversee itself?

It generally works at least in one answerable to the citizenry. If you don't think it can, then the only alternative is anarchy.

 

[Lutherf]

Right. That sarcastic comment as a response to the THIRD time the topic came up was used as the basis for the investigation. That's pure insanity.

 

[Lutherf]

It generally works at least in one answerable to the citizenry. If you don't think it can, then the only alternative is anarchy.

Did it work in the southern states after reconstruction? Did it work in union towns in the north where blacks could get jobs but not senior positions in the unions? Is it working today since everyone is all pissed off about "systemic racism"? All these things the left keeps complaining about are of their own creation! Not only that but they are unwilling to accept ideas that might fix these problems because, for purely egotistical reasons, they can't bear the idea that their vision is just plain wrong.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Did it work in the southern states after reconstruction? Did it work in union towns in the north where blacks could get jobs but not senior positions in the unions? Is it working today since everyone is all pissed off about "systemic racism"? All these things the left keeps complaining about are of their own creation! Not only that but they are unwilling to accept ideas that might fix these problems because, for purely egotistical reasons, they can't bear the idea that their vision is just plain wrong.

Kinda went off the deep end there didn't you?

We can discuss this when your assertions are historically accurate.

 

[Rexedgar]

Right. That sarcastic comment as a response to the THIRD time the topic came up was used as the basis for the investigation. That's pure insanity.

Interesting how the timeline proceeded after that”sarcastic” comment. I saw it in real time and I also took it as sarcastic. Where was the information Trump was going to dish on HRC the week following the Trump Tower meeting?

IMO, the reason this drama has played out as long as it has, is because ”we the people” don’t have the history of grabbing torches and pitchforks every time we should...

Aside: you cannot believe this shit show, you’re smarter than that?????

 

[Rogue Valley]

Aside: you cannot believe this shit show, you’re smarter than that?????

I've seen no evidence of that. Lutherf never met a conspiracy he didn't like.

 

[element94]

The FBI investigated Trump and his campaign staff in 2016 because they presumed that he was guilty of coordination with Russia. They will tell you that it was merely a "Counterintelligence Investigation" and that it was necessary for national security but there was literally NOTHING on which to base the assumption that there was coordination.

Adam Schiff and the Democrats in congress pursued impeachment of Trump because they presumed he had committed an act of campaign fraud through his discussion with the Ukranian president. Schiff LITERALLY substituted his own words for Trump's words, pronounced the presumption of guilt based on those words and prosecuted the case against Trump.

In several police incidents we have seen the presumption that cops are guilty of racially motivated violence against black suspects. Local District Attorneys have levied charges even before investigations are complete and in many cases the charging statements include the presumption of guilt.

We have a militia in Michigan that is accused of attempting to kidnap governor Whitmer. On this site right now we have users calling to investigate all militias, if not all white, male gun owners, because, as far as they are concerned, it's reasonable to presume that anyone associated with any militia or Constitutional preservation type movement is likely guilty of a similar type crime.

If Democrats take power in November can we expect more of this type of "justice"? Is this kind of thing Constitutional? How far removed from "thought crime" or a "police state" is this kind of justice? Is it even justice?

Interesting that in your Trump example you don't mention the firsthand career witnesses who had the goods on the Don, because it's extremely bad for your argument. Since they were not allowed to testify in the Senate trial, which looks like corruption to me, do you also have a problem with investigating the republican majority Senate?

 

[Tigerace117]

The FBI investigated Trump and his campaign staff in 2016 because they presumed that he was guilty of coordination with Russia. They will tell you that it was merely a "Counterintelligence Investigation" and that it was necessary for national security but there was literally NOTHING on which to base the assumption that there was coordination.

Adam Schiff and the Democrats in congress pursued impeachment of Trump because they presumed he had committed an act of campaign fraud through his discussion with the Ukranian president. Schiff LITERALLY substituted his own words for Trump's words, pronounced the presumption of guilt based on those words and prosecuted the case against Trump.

In several police incidents we have seen the presumption that cops are guilty of racially motivated violence against black suspects. Local District Attorneys have levied charges even before investigations are complete and in many cases the charging statements include the presumption of guilt.

We have a militia in Michigan that is accused of attempting to kidnap governor Whitmer. On this site right now we have users calling to investigate all militias, if not all white, male gun owners, because, as far as they are concerned, it's reasonable to presume that anyone associated with any militia or Constitutional preservation type movement is likely guilty of a similar type crime.

If Democrats take power in November can we expect more of this type of "justice"? Is this kind of thing Constitutional? How far removed from "thought crime" or a "police state" is this kind of justice? Is it even justice?

Sounds like you should renounce your citizenship, move to Russia, and never, ever, come back, you victim you.

 

[Cameron]

The FBI investigated Trump and his campaign staff in 2016 because they presumed that he was guilty of coordination with Russia. They will tell you that it was merely a "Counterintelligence Investigation" and that it was necessary for national security but there was literally NOTHING on which to base the assumption that there was coordination.

Adam Schiff and the Democrats in congress pursued impeachment of Trump because they presumed he had committed an act of campaign fraud through his discussion with the Ukranian president. Schiff LITERALLY substituted his own words for Trump's words, pronounced the presumption of guilt based on those words and prosecuted the case against Trump.

In several police incidents we have seen the presumption that cops are guilty of racially motivated violence against black suspects. Local District Attorneys have levied charges even before investigations are complete and in many cases the charging statements include the presumption of guilt.

We have a militia in Michigan that is accused of attempting to kidnap governor Whitmer. On this site right now we have users calling to investigate all militias, if not all white, male gun owners, because, as far as they are concerned, it's reasonable to presume that anyone associated with any militia or Constitutional preservation type movement is likely guilty of a similar type crime.

If Democrats take power in November can we expect more of this type of "justice"? Is this kind of thing Constitutional? How far removed from "thought crime" or a "police state" is this kind of justice? Is it even justice?

I can't take posts like this seriously. Trump blatantly did commit an act of corruption in his discussion with the Ukranian president, the only reason he wasn't fully impeached was that GOP Senators are too afraid of retribution from his base.

As you type this, you and many others are actively refusing to afford Biden a presumption of innocence with respect to the Hunter Biden mess.

The police who are not afforded the presumption of innocence in many cases are the center of attention because they failed to afford black men and women a presumption of innocence.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where politics has perverted everyone's minds, and people are unable to see clearly on many issues. This will continue regardless of who wins the presidency in 2020.

 

[Lutherf]

I can't take posts like this seriously. Trump blatantly did commit an act of corruption in his discussion with the Ukranian president, the only reason he wasn't fully impeached was that GOP Senators are too afraid of retribution from his base.

As you type this, you and many others are actively refusing to afford Biden a presumption of innocence with respect to the Hunter Biden mess.

The police who are not afforded the presumption of innocence in many cases are the center of attention because they failed to afford black men and women a presumption of innocence.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where politics has perverted everyone's minds, and people are unable to see clearly on many issues. This will continue regardless of who wins the presidency in 2020.

Politics has definitely perverted a few minds. You've got my 100% agreement on that!

 

[mrjurrs]

What if they don't appear to be doing anything illegal? Lots of criminals prefer to keep their activity on the DL so it can be hard to recognize any illegal activity. How much evidence of a crime should be required before an investigation gets rolling? For example, if there is a gun show in town and it's known that many criminals go to gun shows to buy their guns then is it reasonable to collect the license plate information of every car in the parking lot, run the names through a crime database and then keep those names on file just in case an incident involving guns comes up?

Ever hear of Grand Juries?

 

[Lutherf]

Ever hear of Grand Juries?

You want the grand jury to collect license plate numbers?

 

[mrjurrs]

Ever hear of Grand Juries?

Evidence of crimes are presented to GJ, so they wouldn't be the ones looking for license plates, they would be looking at license plates presented to them. It is a common way to charge criminals that like to keep their activities on the DL.