• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Presumption Of Guilt

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
37,079
Reaction score
44,277
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
Right. So should the cops just collect everyone's license plate information and then present that to the grand jury as evidence that some crime was committed at the gun show? Basically, if you don't have evidence that a crime was committed but you suspect that one may be committed then is it legitimate to treat everyone as a suspect in the suspected crime?
 

mrjurrs

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
4,803
Reaction score
1,397
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Right. So should the cops just collect everyone's license plate information and then present that to the grand jury as evidence that some crime was committed at the gun show? Basically, if you don't have evidence that a crime was committed but you suspect that one may be committed then is it legitimate to treat everyone as a suspect in the suspected crime?
Yes, as long as all are treated equally. If someone is robbed in a public gathering, are the police wrong to suspect everyone at the beginning of their investigation?
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
37,079
Reaction score
44,277
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, as long as all are treated equally. If someone is robbed in a public gathering, are the police wrong to suspect everyone at the beginning of their investigation?
First, no, the police shouldn't consider everyone to be a suspect. Should they suspect every black guy in a given neighborhood of being the thief in a recent convenience store robbery?

Second, you cited a crime. You did not address the issue of looking for a crime that might have been committed or that someone in authority suspects was committed. In once case you have an actual basis for a complaint. In the other case you have an accusation with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. It's like, "I saw Bob today and he was wearing a fancy watch. He wasn't wearing a fancy watch yesterday so he must have stolen the watch".
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,282
Reaction score
33,003
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ah the Lutherf “Trump and his associates are a victim of everything and everyone” routine.

We all know Lutherf would never support anyone or anything that would break the sacred idea of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Nope, would never side with anyone who would do such a thing or insinuate such a thing.

Hes totally and completely 100% consistent when it comes to this principle.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
38,659
Reaction score
25,693
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
. . . (snipped due to post size constraints).
Your concern about justice, due process and the Constitution should the Democrats come to power is quite spot on.
Column: Truth and Reconciliation Commissions? Why not just make ready the guillotine?

Just as Democratic Party elites and Big Tech try to stamp out the Hunter Biden email story comes another angry demand:

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.

Chew on the chilling, delicious irony as Joe Biden tells us he wants to heal the nation while pundits of the left, backing Biden, seek tribunals. There’s nothing like punishing your opponents in the name of national healing, non?

Or is that, oui?

“When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” tweeted Robert Reich, the progressive former Labor Department secretary to former President Bill Clinton and adviser to President Barack Obama. “It would erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”

This follows another call for a Truth Commission delivered by an MSNBC host, the lefty Chris Hayes:

“The most humane and reasonable way to deal with all these people, if we survive this, is some kind of truth and reconciliation commission.”

And after the public show trials, are the guilty humanely offered blindfolds and a last cigarette? A cafe Americano might be nice.

Among Republicans, the outraged hot take on all of this is to bring up George Orwell’s “1984.”

“It’s Orwellian,” they say.
and
What a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ Would Actually Look Like
Democrats Haven’t Thought Through a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission,’ Have They?

Former secretary of labor Robert Reich garnered some attention this weekend for a tweet calling for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to be established “when this nightmare is over” — presumably he means after Trump is defeated in the upcoming election and when Joe Biden is president. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes made similar comments earlier this month.

This isn’t Reich being short-tempered or flying off the handle in a moment of passion; some on the left have been calling for this idea for years. In May 2018, Kevin Baker wrote an extremely lengthy cover piece in The New Republic calling for one after the Trump era, but at least he acknowledged that the election of a president who drove one side of the aisle crazy with outrage was not the traditional situation that required this kind of commission:
I don’t mean to claim that what has gone on here since the election of Donald Trump approaches what most of those other nations that used truth and reconciliation commissions have endured. The first such effort, initiated by President Raúl Alfonsín of Argentina in 1983 — one earlier attempt, in Bolivia in 1982, was shut down before it was completed and another one, in Uganda in 1974, was overseen by Idi Amin; I’m not counting either — was created to soothe the still-raw wounds of a military dictatorship and “Dirty War” that disappeared some 30,000 people. Since then, at least 42 other nations have tried similar means of getting past the past, and the crimes they have confronted have usually been even more horrific and wide-reaching: the genocides in Rwanda and East Timor; the reign of the white supremacist, apartheid regime in South Africa; Soviet-imposed communism in East Germany; the slaughters perpetrated in Haiti after the overthrow of Aristide, in the Yugoslavian civil wars, and by Mobutu, Kabila, and so many others in the Congo; the atrocities committed by U.S.-backed, enabled, and even encouraged regimes in Brazil, South Korea, Chile, El Salvador, Panama, Uruguay.
If the first point you have to concede is that this is nowhere near the sort of circumstance that requires a truth and reconciliation commission, then you don’t really need a truth and reconciliation commission.
So basically, in Democrat's eyes, Trump supporters are same as with the people who committed atrocities described in the paragraph above. So like I said, your concern about justice, due process and the Constitution should the Democrats come to power is quite spot on.

Appears they'd sacrifice all of that, and more, on the alter of political power and religious levels of meeting out punishment to those who have the temerity to disagree with them.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
58,852
Reaction score
21,038
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Then generally if sufficient evidence cannot be found for a warrant, the process would generally mean that one isn't granted.
Nearly all warrants of any kind are basically rubber stamped. When municipal judges and magistrates tell the police no is virtually never. We learned this is the same for federal courts. The odds are maybe 1 in 1000 are told no for any warrant request. The television show LAW AND ORDER is NOT reality.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
58,852
Reaction score
21,038
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ah the Lutherf “Trump and his associates are a victim of everything and everyone” routine.

We all know Lutherf would never support anyone or anything that would break the sacred idea of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Nope, would never side with anyone who would do such a thing or insinuate such a thing.

Hes totally and completely 100% consistent when it comes to this principle.
What we know is that you almost never post on any topic, but rather just attack other posters. Do you have anything to say on the topic of this thread?
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
77,411
Reaction score
10,781
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nearly all warrants of any kind are basically rubber stamped. When municipal judges and magistrates tell the police no is virtually never. We learned this is the same for federal courts. The odds are maybe 1 in 1000 are told no for any warrant request. The television show LAW AND ORDER is NOT reality.
This is based on your vast legal knowledge.

HAHAHAHAHA
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
58,852
Reaction score
21,038
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
Trump not only committed no crime, the articles of impeachment did not even allege that he did.
 
Last edited:

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
58,852
Reaction score
21,038
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The entire criminal justice system now works on a presumption of guilt and that protections in the Bill Of Rights are optional, depending who the person is, their wealth and what the government wants. A person could spend a year or two - denied bond, in solitary, denied the right to even try to talk to defense witnesses - having never been allowed to make any defense - all based solely on a warrant saying "A good and reliable informant" said the person committed a crime - no right to know who that someone is until a trial 2 years later. Then the government can just say "never mind," drop the charge, but file another "a good and reliable informant said" to hold the person in solitary for another 2 years.

The entire system is built upon forcing people to plead guilty as their only way to get out of jail. Without this the entire criminal justice system would collapse under the volume of cases.

Am innocent person can be held in jail for life even for a civil matter. In a civil case, in court, the judge says to someone "tell me where you hid the money?" The person truthfully says "I don't have the money, never did, don't know where it is." The judge can say "I don't believe you" and send the person to jail until the person answers a question impossible to answer. Think divorce court.
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
25,531
Reaction score
10,495
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Still waiting for the OP to answer the question of whether or not their criteria should also apply to the Bidens, after all the FBI has supposedly been informed and has the data available and while they have not issued any statements the right-wing "news" has run with it as if it were true. Is there a double standard here or not?
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
77,411
Reaction score
10,781
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The entire criminal justice system now works on a presumption of guilt and that protections in the Bill Of Rights are optional, depending who the person is, their wealth and what the government wants. A person could spend a year or two - denied bond, in solitary, denied the right to even try to talk to defense witnesses - having never been allowed to make any defense - all based solely on a warrant saying "A good and reliable informant" said the person committed a crime - no right to know who that someone is until a trial 2 years later. Then the government can just say "never mind," drop the charge, but file another "a good and reliable informant said" to hold the person in solitary for another 2 years.

The entire system is built upon forcing people to plead guilty as their only way to get out of jail. Without this the entire criminal justice system would collapse under the volume of cases.

Am innocent person can be held in jail for life even for a civil matter. In a civil case, in court, the judge says to someone "tell me where you hid the money?" The person truthfully says "I don't have the money, never did, don't know where it is." The judge can say "I don't believe you" and send the person to jail until the person answers a question impossible to answer. Think divorce court.
Well none of this is true
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
77,411
Reaction score
10,781
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Still waiting for the OP to answer the question of whether or not their criteria should also apply to the Bidens, after all the FBI has supposedly been informed and has the data available and while they have not issued any statements the right-wing "news" has run with it as if it were true. Is there a double standard here or not?
The bidens are innocent of course
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
37,079
Reaction score
44,277
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The entire criminal justice system now works on a presumption of guilt and that protections in the Bill Of Rights are optional, depending who the person is, their wealth and what the government wants. A person could spend a year or two - denied bond, in solitary, denied the right to even try to talk to defense witnesses - having never been allowed to make any defense - all based solely on a warrant saying "A good and reliable informant" said the person committed a crime - no right to know who that someone is until a trial 2 years later. Then the government can just say "never mind," drop the charge, but file another "a good and reliable informant said" to hold the person in solitary for another 2 years.

The entire system is built upon forcing people to plead guilty as their only way to get out of jail. Without this the entire criminal justice system would collapse under the volume of cases.

Am innocent person can be held in jail for life even for a civil matter. In a civil case, in court, the judge says to someone "tell me where you hid the money?" The person truthfully says "I don't have the money, never did, don't know where it is." The judge can say "I don't believe you" and send the person to jail until the person answers a question impossible to answer. Think divorce court.
That started with the attempts to rein in organized crime. You go from that to a "war on drugs" and then a "war on terror" and little by little everyone starts looking like a mob boss, drug dealing, terrorist to every prosecutor. The more you get your name in the paper the better your odds are of getting that AG job and the better the booze served at the cocktail parties so if you have to break a few eggs to get those prosecutions then at least you're doing so for all the most noble reasons.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
58,852
Reaction score
21,038
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That started with the attempts to rein in organized crime. You go from that to a "war on drugs" and then a "war on terror" and little by little everyone starts looking like a mob boss, drug dealing, terrorist to every prosecutor. The more you get your name in the paper the better your odds are of getting that AG job and the better the booze served at the cocktail parties so if you have to break a few eggs to get those prosecutions then at least you're doing so for all the most noble reasons.
Kamala Harris got her start in politics by having sex with a 60 year old married mayor.

Deliberately and knowingly sending innocent black men to prison was Kamala Harris's basis to now be running for president having not won one primary. Prosecuting innocent people, hiding proof of innocence - even to put them on death row, is what Harris means when she says she is a law and order candidate. Guilt or innocence was completely irrelevant to her. She wanted convictions of black people so she prosecuted black people - and bragged on it.
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
77,411
Reaction score
10,781
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kamala Harris got her start in politics by having sex with a 60 year old married mayor.

Deliberately and knowingly sending innocent black men to prison was Kamala Harris's basis to now be running for president having not won one primary. Prosecuting innocent people, hiding proof of innocence - even to put them on death row, is what Harris means when she says she is a law and order candidate. Guilt or innocence was completely irrelevant to her. She wanted convictions of black people so she prosecuted black people - and bragged on it.
Hey look....a bunch of lies!!!
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
25,163
Reaction score
13,483
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?



 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
44,708
Reaction score
15,199
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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?
You got that wrong from the very 1st sentence. The investigation of the Trump campaign started because of U.S. and allied monitoring of known Russian spies. That monitoring disclosed a number of Trump campaign associates repeatedly talking with those spies. The investigations was started because of suspected infiltration of a Presidential campaign by a hostile power. That is the FBI's job in case you forgot.

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
 
Top Bottom