No, MSNBC and CNN....

[PCIntern]

I don’t have to have the presumption of innocence-I’m not on the jury, I’m not the judge, I’m not a court officer or jailer. I have a solid presumption of guilt because he’s guilty of whatever they say and probably ten thousand or more crimes which have yet to be mentioned if they ever are.

Perhaps rewatching the Star Chamber with Michael Douglas would help, or that great line: “Sure we’ll give you a fair trial and then we’ll hang you.” Yeah…that’s the ticket. Fuck him. Central Park Five, right? Up his ass.

Fuck. Him.

[Beautiful Disaster]

1. I've said this for every case ever lol

I am not a juror. I can presume someone's guilty all I want. Trump is guilty. Whether he's found guilty in a court of law is another story, tho!

[Roy Rolling]

64. I hear ya!

When we control a multibillion dollar network let ‘em have it with speculation! After all, what’s the worst that can happen? Get sued for $1.6 billion like Fox?

Joking, of course. But corporate commercial networks must broadcast only the legal status when commenting on an ongoing legal proceeding.

It’s what keeps them different than Fox, OAN, Newsmax, and the rest of the network wannabes.

[Paladin]

2. +1000.

Well said.

[doc03]

3. Yes you can presume him guilty if you want, I do too. But under our laws you are innocent

until proven guilty. A legitimate news network can't say he is guilty, couldn't that be used in
Trump's defense?

[mjvpi]

10. Agreed. I do however acknowledge that this is part of a previously litigated case.

The facts and outcome of that case are public record. Individual 1 dontchaknow.

[Aussie105]

49. Predicting the outcome of an upcoming court case is never smart.

All you can say the outcome is indeterminate at the moment.

That is totally different to assuming guilt or innocence.

O.J. Simpson case - waited for the outcome, didn't pre-judge.
Same now.

[ShazzieB]

54. Oh, come on, people do that all the time.

Predicting the outcome of a case or just having strong feelings about it are both extremely common and quite norrmal.

As a person who has followed a number of high profile criminal cases (including OJ), I always have an opinion, and I'm always rooting for the side I believe to be in the right, because I'm passionate about justice. I don't necessarily try to predict the outcome, but I sure as hell know what outcome I'm hoping for.

When the verdict comes down, it can result in disappointment or elation, depending on whether I think the jury got it right, but I have never regretted being passionate about a case. I am quite capable of managing my emotions, as all of us have to do whenever we root for someone in any kind of contest. (And in the U.S. judicial system, a trial is always meant to be a contest; rightly or wrongly, it's designed that way.)

There is nothing wrong with watching justice unfold dispassionately, and there is also nothing wrong with having strong feelings about a case and being emotionally invested in the outcome. Different strokes for different folks.

[treestar]

86. but then watch for

getting yourself so biased, that when the verdict turns out to be different than you want, you insist it was not justice. But it was according to our system.

OJ was one trial, yet so many wanted to change the entire legal system because of it. We have to accept the verdicts that we don't like, since no one can get the verdicts they expect for any case they happen to take an interest in.

[ShazzieB]

107. I'm not sure what you mean by "accept."

We have to accept the verdicts that we don't like, since no one can get the verdicts they expect for any case they happen to take an interest in.

Here's the thing, though: our justice system is not perfect. It's better than some, but no justice system created and administered by imperfect humans can ever be perfect. Lawyers (on either side or both) make mistakes, as do investigators, and jurors are fallible humans who are also valuable of making mistakes.

It's true that we have to "accept" the verdict of a court, but we are NOT required to AGREE with every single verdict. OJ was acquitted (due to a number of factors about which multiple books have been written), but a lot of people (including me) still believe he was guilty, and we are allowed to hold that opinion, regardless of what the verdict was. We have to accept the verdict, in that there's nothing any of us can do to change it, but we are still allowed to disagree with it and to question how the jury arrived at it.

Let's face it; miscarriages of justice ARE a thing. Innocent people are found guilty and guilty ones are acquitted, much more often than we would like to think. We are allowed to regard a particular verdict as a miscarriage of justice, if that's how we believe the facts stack up. There are lawyers who make a career out of working to right what they see as the justice system's wrongs. One notable example is the Innocence Project: https://innocenceproject.org/

In many, many cases, lawyers do a good job, and juries get it right, but not always. We should all respect a jury's authority to render a verdict, but we are NOT required to agree with them every time.

[LiberalFighter]

102. I thought ok was innocent.

Especially after the glove don't fit bit.

It wasn't until later I realized that leather shrinks when not used. I was about 35 at the time. I change my mind soon after.

[treestar]

85. true, anything official will call Lee Harvey Oswald

and "alleged" killer, since there as no opportunity to bring him to trial. So technically he is not guilty, but people can have an opinion about it.

[ffr]

4. Fuck him, indeed!

I long for the day when he isn't talked about or seen in public or on TV. Fuck him and his illiberal enablers!!!

[Joinfortmill]

5. Amen.

[Jarqui]

6. GOP members have widely presumed that this is a politically motivated prosecution

funded by Soros (false claim) without reading the indictment or looking at a shred of evidence.

Even members of the House & Senate and conservative members of the media are doing this.

Anyone here want to presume guilt? You have my blessing.
It is very likely to turn out better for you than the GOP.

[onecaliberal]

28. Why did his DOJ lock up Cohen for the same crime?

[Beastly Boy]

47. Certainly not because DOJ presumed guilt.

Cohen pleaded guilty.

[Marcuse]

59. After DOJ threatened to indict his wife. There is evidence that Barr tried to withdraw the plea i.e.

General Michael Flynn.

[Beastly Boy]

77. Relevance?

Cohen wasn't presumed guilty. He was presumed innocent until he entered his plea. The rest is speculation.

[Marcuse]

78. Wrong thread. Sorry.

[Beastly Boy]

79. Were you responding to the OP or to my post?

If the content of the post you are responding to is of no concern to you, try responding to the OP instead.

[MichMan]

7. I'm with Speaker Pelosi

No one is above the law and everyone has a right to a trial to prove innocence.

[PCIntern]

8. That's not what she sez in private I'm certain.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

14. Pelosi is restating the Rule of Law we should all salute. All the Rules, for All, Equally.

Cause we are just better than them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

51. No she isn't

She had it completely backwards.

[LakeArenal]

29. He doesn't have to prove his innocence.

NY has to prove him guilty.

That’s exactly why it takes so long to bring an indictment.

[whopis01]

65. Trials are never about proving innocence.

Trials are about proving guilt. The outcome of the trial will either prove guilt or it won’t prove guilt. Failure to prove guilt is not the same thing as proving innocence.

[PCIntern]

69. You know,

I’m 70 years old and I was not aware of this.

If anyone bothered to read the post carefully, I made the statement that I am not the judge. I am not the jury, and I presume that he’s guilty because I can. That is my right to do and I’m entitled to have an opinion. All of a sudden, I’m hearing all this Sanctimonious I’ll call it “stuff“, about the system. I am very well aware of the system, how it works, and its attributes. If I were on the jury, I would have an open mind to listen to the facts and make a determination based on the facts as presented in court. But I’m not on the jury at this moment, and not planning to be, and I actually have an opinion having watched him for maybe 40+ years.

[whopis01]

70. Your OP seemed pretty understandable to me

And I agree with you completely.

When it comes to guilt and innocence there is:

1) reality
2) what I (or anyone else) believes and
3) what the court decides

They are independent of one another.

Even within the legal system, it is only certain entities that have to have the presumption of innocence (judge and jury). The prosecutor certainly doesn’t. If they did, why would they being going to trial?

[PCIntern]

74. Ok...

Your post implied that I wasn’t following accepted norms of prejudice in matters judicial. I understand what your thrust was now however. Thanks!

[whopis01]

84. I think you really misread my post

First it wasn’t a reply to your OP at all. It was a reply to someone else’s post.

Someone else responded to your OP saying that they agreed with Nancy Pelosi that everyone should have a chance to a trial to prove their innocence.

My post was to them saying that no one has to prove their innocence at a trial. That’s not what trials are.

[PCIntern]

87. Apologies.

[soldierant]

99. Yes, she did say "prove" innocence, which was wrong.

but everyone who is accused of a crime certainly does have a right to "defend" his or her innocence

In a perfect world all evidence presented by the prosecution would be factual and accurate. And in this trial I expect that to be so simply because it is under such scrutiny.

IRL evidence may be corrupt and a defendant may end up in a position of having to "prove" his or her innocemce against false evidence. Witness the Centrral Park Five. No, that isn't supposed to happen, But it can.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

9. We still have the right to a fair trial in this country.

Think what you want, but losing that would be the end of liberal democracy and the rule of law.

[PCIntern]

12. Did I say that?

I am NOT required to have presumption of innocence. If I were the judge or jury , yes. But I’m not.

[Beastly Boy]

52. You don't have to presume innocence, but you can be sued for presuming guilt.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

Traditionally, libel was a tort governed by state law. State courts generally follow the common law of libel, which allows recovery of damages without proof of actual harm. Under the traditional rules of libel, injury is presumed from the fact of publication.

...Don't worry, my lips are sealed!

[inthewind21]

11. Oh my

I hope you never sit on a jury.

[PCIntern]

13. I've been on juries and was extremely sensitive to my role and the law.

But again, I’m not in this case.

[ShazzieB]

56. Serving on a jury is completely different from watching a trial from the sidelines.

The presumption of Innocence only applies to the judge and the jury in a court of law. As spectators, we are allowed to presume whatever we like, hold any opinion we feel like holding, and express our opinions freely.

[PCIntern]

62. How dare you make sense?

I don’t get these people. According to them, 280 million people should not have had an opinion or gut feeling in the OJ case.

[Captain Zero]

73. Yeah and today OJ himself basically says, I did it.

nt

[treestar]

88. there were people who wanted to

reform the system somehow based on the OJ case not turning out the way they wanted.

Presuming guilt because you are not on the jury may be OK, but not if you are going to second guess the jury and demand changes to the system based on that.

Not saying you did, but others did.

There was also that hot coffee case against Mcdonald's that tort reformers used to rile people up. Then looking into the actual case, it was not a unreasonable and outrageous as it initially sounded.

If TFG is acquitted, we know DU will be full of condemnations for how the system lets a rich white man get away with thing.

[grantcart]

15. Even knowing a person did something does not mean they are guilty.

Only the evidence that can legally be entered into evidence under the supervision of the judge can be considered so I await the judgment of the court.

I do so knowing that the prosecutors are extremely competent and normally win 97% of their cases (in this case they took their time and dotted their "I"s and crossed their "T"s 100 times and based on that would be beyond astonished if he isn't found guilty on most of the counts.

[PCIntern]

17. Ok...

So all of a sudden he’s an innocent babe? Look…I understand how it works and have great respect for the system. What I am simply saying is that I think he’s guilty and because I’m not deciding this for him personally, have that right and ability. It is up to the participants to manage his trial which he is of course entitled to and the prosecution must follow the rule of law.

Like the OJ Simpson case.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

21. There is a yawning chasm between believing DJT is an "innocent babe," something no one here believes

and thinking the Star Chamber is a model for American justice.

Good grief.

[PCIntern]

63. Jesus....

I did not say it was. I was referring to this malignant narcissistic sociopath who killed hundreds of thousands and attempted to overthrow the government. This is a different level of needed justice. It’d be like saying Hitler must be presumed innocent. Go right ahead. Please proceed.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

76. You are the one who feels morally outraged here?

Read what you've written.

[treestar]

91. of course he would have been

supposing those were the standards at Nuremburg.

The system does not determine some people undeserving of justice. It is not a conclusion about how bad a person is. It is about whether they did a particular thing.

Hitler did know what would happen, thus he killed himself first. That's an admission of guilt and sure he would have been found guilty. But we would not say he should not be tried first, with the same rules as anyone else.

Like Hillary being shat on for daring to defend someone accused of something. Like if only one is accused of something heinous enough, they lose due process.

[treestar]

90. but if he is acquitted

or pleads, it is going to be the prosecutor's fault, like Marcia whatever her name was? They just didn't do a good enough job? If you're not at least somewhat objective, that's where we go.

[whopis01]

67. Actually it does mean exactly that

You are conflating being guilty with being found guilty be a court of law. Those are not the same thing.


The legal system says you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You will not be held responsible unless you are proven guilty by legal standards. But reality is reality and the decision of the court does not actually change that.

William Blackstone said in 1760, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” That clearly acknowledges that a person may be guilty but let go because their guilt wasn’t proven to the court.

Really even within the legal system, there is no universal presumption of innocence. Only the portion that doles out punishment. For example, the prosecutor is not obligated to presume that the defendant is innocent. If they did, why would they ever go to trial?

The OP is correctly making the point that they are under no obligation whatsoever to presume Trump is innocent and they are correct.

[grantcart]

83. Rubbish

There are lots of examples that can be cited of people doing something and not be legally guilty and also not being actually guilty. There are examples of people not having the mental capacity to comprehend their actions, guilt also requires intent which obviously does not go with all actions so simply doing an act is not the same as being guilty of a crime.

In this case the felony only is attached because it is linked to Trump's candidacy, if he wasn't a candidate there would be no felony. Based on the phone logs that appear to have occurred hours after the Access Hollywood tape I believe that they will be able to prove it, but let's say those didn't exist and he had no concern about his campaign it was really only about concealing his relationship with his wife, then he would have done something but not been guilty of any felony.

But the bigger issue that the OP is promoting is proclaiming that someone is guilty and the trial is not necessary, that nothing that happens in the trial would change his mind. That essentially is what Trump did with the Central Park 5. They confessed (which was coerced and false) and after that Trump did not care what other facts are presented.

You can be joyous about a bad person being in legal trouble and you can be happy that a notorious evil person is being held to account and you can be informed that good prosecutors win 98 percent of the time, I am all three. Once you are saying in public discourse that a person is guilty and we don't have to pay attention to the niceties of the legal system then you have crossed the polemical line and stand shoulder to shoulder with Trump.

The OP is stating that his emotional outrage is all that should be enough for a conviction while we should all be agreeing with the pundits who say Trump is presumed innocent and his guilt will be determined by a rational and objective establishment of the facts under rules established in a court of law.

[treestar]

93. +1

exactly what we rightly criticize TFG for with his opinions on the Central Park 5.

[whopis01]

98. Let's try to be a little more honest in our arguments.

Once again, you are missing the point. The court does not decide reality. The court decides its opinion of reality.

Being guilty and being legally found guilty are two separate concepts.

Do you believe that everyone convicted of a crime in court is guilty of that crime? Unless you believe that, you have to acknowledge that being guilty and being legally found guilty are separate things.



On at least three occasions, you mischaracterized or enitrely falsified what someone said in order to make your argument.

You clearly wish to make it sound like the OP, and myself, are saying that there is no need for a trial, he is guilty, throw him in jail. If that were the case, your argument might hold water, but it simply isn't true.

You said:

"the OP is promoting is proclaiming that someone is guilty and the trial is not necessary"


"Once you are saying in public discourse that a person is guilty and we don't have to pay attention to the niceties of the legal system"


"The OP is stating that his emotional outrage is all that should be enough for a conviction"

The OP never said anything remotely close to that, nor did I.

The OP was saying that they had a right to their own opinion because "I’m not on the jury, I’m not the judge, I’m not a court officer or jailer." Clearly acknowledging that the judicial process needs to maintain a presumption of innocence, and the only reason that the OP doesn't is because they are not part of the legal process.

[grantcart]

100. lipstick on a pig

You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want but it is still a pig.


What is the OP stating? That when it comes to public discourse:

We should not uphold the presumption of innocence

He has a presumption of guilt.

He is guilty of whatever they say and probably ten thousand or more crimes

These are outrageous emotionally driven statements that are completely contrary to liberal advocacy.

So you are saying he is guilty when the indictment hasn't even been issued so exactly, pray tell what have you found him guilty of in the Manhattan action when they haven't even made public what the charges are?

You don't know what the indictment says but he is certainly guilty of it no matter what it says. This thread is one of those examples where DU lets its emotions take control and say "facts be damned".

You can advocate the public should wave the presumption of innocence but I will not. You support the presumption of guilt even though all we have is a statement that and indictment is voted on and not one letter stating what the charges are.

Very Trumpian indeed. Exactly how is this differentiated from the "Lock her Up" chants?

This lack of support for due process makes me ill and as I would prefer to avoid such sentiments on the day I share with Dr. Maddow I will leave you to finish the thread and explain how abandoning the presumption of innocence is not what the OP said, is a perfect statement, is not what I meant to say, not what the court system is really about, not something that should be applied to a scoundrel like Trump, etc, etc, etc. You are free to twist and turn and make all of the ridiculous links to completely unrelated and off point citations (like the ridiculously off point reference to Blackstone).

Your replies are the dishonest ones as you try to veer away from the central premise of the OP

This OP is about one simple proposition: That in public discourse, whether CNN or MSNBC or among ourselves do we really support the idea of the presumption of innocence?

The OP has let his emotions get away from him and finds him guilty (of this and 10,000 other unspecified crimes) without having to bother with an actual indictment or an actual trial. You agree.

I disagree. It is exactly what Trump did with the Central Park 5 when he bought an ad advocating for their re arrest. I find the evidence in this case, the Georgia interference case, and the secret document case to be overwhelming. (Not sure about the Jan 6 case, more difficult to prove sedition). I hope that he gets fantastic attorneys and that they present a vigorous defense so that when the guilty verdict is reached that any open minded citizen will see that Trump was afforded the due process that he tried to deny others.

The sub thread is yours run from the central proposition that even Donald Trump should have the presumption of innocence to your heart's content.

[whopis01]

101. I notice you avoided my question

1) Do you believe that everyone found guilty of a crime in a court of law is actually guilty of that crime?

2) As a follow up, do you believe that being actually guilty of a crime and being legally found guilty of a crime are the same thing?

3) Do you think prosecutors approach a case by presuming the suspect is innocent? And if they do, then why do they bring charges against someone that they presume is innocent?


Acting like the presumption of innocence is required by all parties at all times until someone is found guilty by a court gets ridiculous very quickly. Do police presume innocence when they are arresting someone? Do they presume innocence when they perform a search based on "probably cause"? Does a grand jury presume innocence when they decide whether or not a charge is warranted? They do not, nor are they required to do so. Presumption of innocence only applies to the judge and jury when it comes to a trial.


I am not sure that I understand what you mean by:
"The sub thread is yours run from the central proposition that even Donald Trump should have the presumption of innocence to your heart's content."

Just to make my points clear once again:
1) I believe that Donald Trump should have the same presumption of innocence afforded to all other defendants in a court of law.
2) I believe that no punishment should be inflicted on Donald Trump unless he is found guilty in a court of law.
3) I do not believe that being found guilty in a court of law always means the defendant committed the crime.
4) I do not believe that being found not guilty in a court of law always means the defendant did not commit the crime.
5) I do not believe that not being charged with a crime always means the suspect did not commit the crime.
6) I believe I have the right to my own opinion, my own thoughts.

[Beastly Boy]

106. I find your arguments quite a bit different from those in the OP

Last edited Sat Apr 1, 2023, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

The OP posted: "I have a solid presumption of guilt because he’s guilty of whatever they say and probably ten thousand or more crimes which have yet to be mentioned if they ever are." Solid presumption of guilt because he is guilty is a circular argument. Solid presumption of guilt of something yet to be mentioned is an incongruity. Solid presumption of guilt of something that may never be mentioned is an oxymoron. So the flaws of this argument are pretty evident. Not being the jury, or the judge, etc., does not save this argument from its flaws.

And the OP makes it clear that presumption of guilt is presumed to be of crimes, both the ones already mentioned (presumably in the mass media) and those yet to be mentioned. Agreed, there are different ways of defining guilt other than legal ones, but when we talk about "guilty of crimes", it's a whole different matter.

You, on the other hand, are more careful in how you phrase your points: you qualify each one of them with "I believe". To counter your points, then, all one needs to do is repeat them, while substituting "I believe" with "I don't believe", or vice versa. While it may not make much sense in every instance, this brings each of your points to a dead end, without resolution or the need for further debate. Because your opinion is just as valid as mine. No more, no less.

Except, in the context of this thread, for the last one. When someone expresses presumption of another's guilt in committing a crime, it is no longer an opinion or a thought, it's an accusation. A libel in this case, to be more precise. Something that is punishable by law, where no presumptions, opinions or thoughts will do, and where due process rules. And god help us all if due process does not presume innocence until proven guilty.

[whopis01]

109. My thoughts are my own and my arguments are my own

You said:
"When someone expresses presumption of another's guilt in committing a crime [...] it's an accusation. A libel in this case"

That is simply not true. You are using an incorrect definition of presumption.

The definitions of presumption include;
1) something that people think is probably true
and
2) (law) the act of supposing that something is true, although it has not yet been proved or is not certain

Let's go with the second definition as it is the one applied in legal cases. The term presumption does not state that something is a fact. It states that it is being assumed to be true with the recognition that may not be the case.

This is the very basis of why it works in the legal system. Presuming innocence is not the same as declaring innocence. It allows for uncertainty. Likewise presuming guilt is the the same as declaring guilt.

The point of my questions earlier was to show that "presumption" is a statement about belief (hence the use of the phrase "I believe" earlier). It is not a statement of known fact. Using it implies that you are uncertain of the facts.

If I, or the OP, or anyone else were to make the statement "Donald Trump did xyz", that is a statement about the actions of Donald Trump which may or may not be true. That could potentially be libel. However, if I, or anyone else, were to say "I believe Donald Trump did xyz", or "I presume Donald Trump did xyz", or "I have a solid presumption that Donald Trump did xyz", then that is a statement about the belief of the author/speaker. That will never be libel.

The entire point of my argument is that the judge and jury are required to approach the case starting from a certain belief. Specifically that the defendant is innocent. No one else in the legal system, or outside is required to afford that same belief.

Juries and judges are required to perform a fair bit of thought control on themselves. They are told to disregard things that they may have heard either inside or outside the court. They are told to not use certain pieces of information known to them while making decisions. They are told to ignore certain facts known to them and make a decision as if they didn't know that. And there is good reason for requiring them to do this.

The rest of us are not, and should not, be subject to those restrictions in thought.

[Beastly Boy]

110. I take it that your objections to my post is limited to its last paragraph.

More specifically, it is limited to how I used the term "presumption" as it relates to the definition of libel. So far so good.

So let's examine what I said regarding "presumption":

Except, in the context of this thread, for the last one. When someone expresses presumption of another's guilt in committing a crime, it is no longer an opinion or a thought, it's an accusation. A libel in this case, to be more precise. Something that is punishable by law, where no presumptions, opinions or thoughts will do, and where due process rules. And god help us all if due process does not presume innocence until proven guilty.

I am specifically referring to presumption of guilt. You are equating presumption of guilt to presumption of innocence. They are absolutely not the same. Presumption of innocence is written into law (as in presumed innocent until proven guilty). Notwithstanding your cited definition of presumption, there is no law guiding presumption of guilt. In fact, presumption of guilt is contrary and fundamentally antithetical to presumption of innocence. This should be taken in to consideration when looking at the definition of "presumption" you cited.

This definition says nothing about the legal consequences of presumption. Let me give you another definition that does:

In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_301
As you can see, presumption allows for legal action by the party against whom a presumption is directed.

Additionally, I wasn't just talking about presumption as such, I was talking about "presumption of another's guilt in committing a crime". Which brings me to the definition of "accusation":

Accusation Law and Legal Definition

To accuse means to make a charge of wrongdoing against another. Accusation can be a formal charge of criminal wrong doing, like the accusation that is presented to a court or magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime. It can also be an informal statement that a person has engaged in an illegal or immoral act. An accusation that is contrary to fact or truth is a false accusation.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/accusation

/#:~:text=Accusation%20can%20be%20a%20formal%20charge%20of%20criminal,to%20fact%20or%20truth%20is%20a%20false%20accusation.

As you can see, an accusation that is contrary to fact or truth has nothing to do with one's opinions.

Both a presumption and an accusation have legal consequences. When an accusation is made in writing and is proven false (which is pretty easy to do in your case when you explicitly state it to be based on your thoughts and opinions alone), it becomes subject to legal action related to libel.

So when someone says "I presume Donald Trump did xyz", or "I have a solid presumption that Donald Trump did xyz", it is not merely a statement of one's belief. It can easily grow into a libel lawsuit.

And we have already covered how easily one can dismiss and neuter "I believe Donald Trump did xyz".

[whopis01]

111. You keep missing the key point

Did you actually read the quote you provided from Cornell Law? It doesn't appear that you understood it from what you said.

"In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally."

First, it is talking about a civil case (hence the phrase "In a civil case").
In a civil case, there is no determination of guilt. There is a determination of liability.

You said "presumption allows for legal action by the party against whom a presumption is directed".
That is not what the quote is saying. It is not saying that the targeted party is now allowed legal action because of the presumption. It is saying that they must produce evidence to rebut the presumption, otherwise the presumption will be allowed to stand. This is, of course, specific to civil cases.

That article goes on to say that the presumption has the effect of "placing upon the opposing party the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it."

In fact, it goes on to discuss a case where a party is automatically presumed negligent unless they provide facts to the contrary.


All of this just goes to show that the concepts of presumption, presumption of guilt, presumption of liablity, etc. are senstive to the situation in which they are being presented. What those mean for a criminal court, a civil court, and a non-involved party are very different things.

You final statements really make little sense, unless you really don't get the point being made.

"Both a presumption and an accusation have legal consequences. When an accusation is made in writing and is proven false (which is pretty easy to do in your case when you explicitly state it to be based on your thoughts and opinions alone), it becomes subject to legal action related to libel.

So when someone says 'I presume Donald Trump did xyz', or 'I have a solid presumption that Donald Trump did xyz', it is not merely a statement of one's belief. It can easily grow into a libel lawsuit.

And we have already covered how easily one can dismiss and neuter 'I believe Donald Trump did xyz'.


You seem to act like I used to the term "I believe" as a way of getting away with making an accusation without actually doing so. That is simply not the truth. The use of "I believe" explicitly indicates that I do not know it to be a fact and implicitly indicates that it may change in the future. I suppose I could be clearer and state "I believe at this moment in time...", but that just gets tedious.

We are constantly operating with incomplete knowledge for almost every situation in life. Whether it is trying to decide if we should carry an umbrella in case it rains, which career path is better for our future, or should we trust someone we suspect of wrongdoing. We can not wait until all things are proven before making a decision of how to proceed. Thus we make presumptions. The legal system is a different beast entirely, and it has other rules which it must follow. A person can not be presumed guilty of a crime, and therefor punished, without first having been proven guilty. However, a train company can be presumed to be liable for an injury to someone on the tracks until it is proven otherwise.


Just to be clear, my central point stems from agreement with the OP's statement "No, MSNBC and CNN.... I don’t have to have the presumption of innocence-I’m not on the jury, I’m not the judge, I’m not a court officer or jailer.". I agree with that whole heartedly. I also agree that the legal system must have the presumption of innocence for him.

[Beastly Boy]

112. We are talking about legal definitions for presumption and accusation, aren't we?

This being the case, a civil court is a valid venue to bring as an example. Never did I mention that a civil suit is supposed to establish guilt. I mentioned "punishable by law", I mentioned legal action, I mentioned libel, I mentioned legal consequences. Not guilt. So I will not waste any more effort on addressing this strawman. Let's also remember that an objection to someone baselessly presuming a crime does not require anyone to be found guilty or innocent of a crime.

In the quote I cited, "civil case" is not by any means a prerequisite for the definition of "presumption" to spring into existence. To suggest otherwise would seem problematic: how can one complete a legal action of petitioning the court for a case involving presumption without presumption figuring in the petition in the first place? Clearly, legal action prior to a civil case is implied by the basics of logic, even when it is not explicitly stated in the quote. Obviously, presumption is the cause for legal action, not its consequence, and it plays a role way before a civil case commences. How does the absence of something self-evident in a cited source make my statement inaccurate?

While I made it clear that I wasn't just talking about presumption as such but was talking about "presumption of another's guilt in committing a crime", you are trying very hard to separate presumption from its subject. Presumption in itself cannot possibly make the case. In fact, trying to separate presumption from what is being presumed is ridiculous on its face. Nevertheless, presumption certainly "allows for legal action by the party against whom a presumption is directed". And "placing upon the opposing party the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it" IS legal action, isn't it? Unless you insist that bringing presumption up in a court of law does not amount to legal action. You are not insisting on that, are you?

i have already addressed the ease with which "the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact" can be met in this particular case, so I will not go into it again.

I don't particularly care why you used the term "I believe", so your assessment of my actions doesn't bare any relevance to the record of what I have said. And what my record shows is how ill-suited any "I believe" statement is for rational debate. All I have to do is to counter it with the equally irrational "I believe in the exact opposite". That immediately end the discussion without resolution or consequence. You want to keep doing it? By all means, please proceed!

[whopis01]

113. You are missing the point and quite purposely so

This will be my last post to you on this subject. Please feel free to have the last word on the matter.

I have made it very clear that I am not talking about the legal definition of presumption.
I have said that repeatedly and you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said.


Say what you will, but the following statements are facts and they are the point that I have made many times.

1) The court system has a legal obligation to presume the innocence of a defendant in a criminal matter.

2) I, as a uninvolved third party who plays no role in the court system, have no obligation to presume the innocence of that defendant.

[Beastly Boy]

114. You are not talking about legal definitions or presumptions except when you are talking about

legal definitions or presumptions. Your posts are full of them, and you alternating between them and tings that you believe does not obscure this fact.

Never did I make an assumption that you have an obligation to presume the innocence of a defendant. I only object when you condone presumption of guilt of a defendant regardless of due process of law taking place. I am not misrepresenting anything, and I am missing nothing.

I am addressing what you posted, and nothing outside of what you posted.

[treestar]

92. they know the law does though

so they are aware that they need to have evidence to meet the reasonable doubt standard.

[whopis01]

97. Of course. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. n/t

[treestar]

89. Yes, they know they have the highest burden of proof

and they can keep their win ratio good by knowing what cases they will be most likely able to prove.

I recall Bugliosi had 100% conviction rate for a time. But that doesn't credit his advocacy so much as it credited his knowing when to plead / dismiss and when to try a case.

[edisdead]

16. OMG

this thread… Not the OP.


He is fucking guilty.

[PCIntern]

18. I think so...

But apparently some can’t separate the concept of the law and procedure thereof and what the citizen is entitled to feel in his or her heart and mind.

[edisdead]

19. and the same ones

and the same ones will complain that the dems are weak and their messaging is soft.

[slightlv]

35. Once again,

I wish there was a way to REC individual comments. Throw me into the bunch that says I'm entitled to my own opinion, since I'm not a member of the jury, a judge, or have anything to do with this... other than on the grandstands, mourning the many friends *rump has cost me due to his handling of COVID. As well as disgusted with the crimes and "workarounds" he found to hold this country hostage *to this very day.*

I trust that as much time as it took to get this one, first indictment that all the prosecutors have done all kinds of due diligence, and will be successful in bringing this case to the jury. Do I trust the jury to do what's right? I dunno. That's another question.. as in, how packed will it be with magats? While I have a great respect for what our judicial system is *suppose* to be, I don't have a lot of faith in how it actually manifests justice. Too much interference, and throughout the whole trial (and whatever comes afterwards) we'll have half of Congress trying to stick its nose in to make sure *rump gets the best of the best possible. I wouldn't be surprised if he somehow manages to get some of our tax dollars to fund his defense. Nothing surprises me with him anymore. I'm way to jaded by now... too cynical.

But for now, I'm absolutely elated he's been called for at least one crime. And it's NOT a tawdry sex crime as the R's would have us to believe. It's the financial crimes attached to the original sex act, as well as the intent to influence an election. That's a heck of a lot more than just paying off a sex worker, especially for someone who goes around bragging about how anyone who pays taxes is a sucker and loser.

[edisdead]

50. ery well stated

And rec’d (if only in my mind)

[malaise]

20. I don't care what they say

I’m celebrating the indictment
That is all😀😀😀

[Boomerproud]

22. This came to mind today. How long can Ts lawyers drag this out

with motions to dismiss et al. It's bothering me that that folks are celebrating too soon. I expected the cultists to lose their minds b/c they did that a long time ago.

[Upthevibe]

23. PCIntern........

I would think the networks (and even some of the podcasts and youtube channels) are obligated to bring this up.....

[Downsouthjukin]

24. Right on!!

I have seen enough public facing evidence to convict Oranganus already. I believe he is guilty of treason. As far as I am concerned they can put him against a wall with a blindfold and a cigarette.

[Tetrachloride]

25. In order to preserve his innocence and the world,

there may be compromises.

[Evolve Dammit]

26. Very much feeling that way myself. Criminal mob boss, life-long con artist, tax cheat, rapist.

Can't wait for Carrol's lawsuit scheduled to begin soon. May he go to prison for the rest of his disgusting life.

[relayerbob]

27. And if everybody was like that

We would not have a trial nor jury system.

[ProfessorPlum]

72. way to completely misread the OP

[panader0]

30. I wanted him arrested the moment Biden was inaugurated.

He was guilty of many things by then. But the DOJ was Barr. Folks on DU seemed to be a few steps
ahead of Biden's DOJ.

[Sky Jewels]

40. They should have arrested him in late January of '21.

The motherfucker literally attempted a violent coup d'etat/election theft. He should have been arrested as soon as Biden's DOJ took over.

[TimeToGo]

31. Indeed.

[The Wizard]

32. Getting really tired

of being threatened by his Brown Shirts.

[wiggs]

33. Agree. Most humans are equipped with an ability to observe, notice, retain information, evaluate

the information, and come of some sort of opinion.

We have observed for 6 years (read about much longer) and can have an idea or two about what the information means. The conclusions might vary between observers, but given enough information it's not unreasonable that some, if not most, will come to some conclusion even outside of the courtroom.

I don't know what the charges are, what the defense will be, to form a final official finding...but based on what I've read and observed I can say I would not presume this guy is innocent. Of anything.

[LiberalFighter]

34. I agree. If they don't see the facts then they are being stupid.

[Beastly Boy]

36. You don't have to justify your presumption of guilt in any way.

In which case "because he is guilty of whatever" is a redundancy. From the perspective you are advocating, cause and effect do not exist. You can maintain presumption of Trump's guilt no matter the circumstances. And that's fine.

Just keep in mind that it does not affect due process of law or the eventual outcome of Trump's case. No use getting upset if your expectations are not met.

[dchill]

37. Yeah, I'm'a presume him guilty...

...cause I'm not stupid.

[FakeNoose]

38. I hope the Manhattan DA shows Chump the same courtesy

... that Chump showed towards the Central Park Five. And many others. In other words, the presumption of innocence is complete bullshit, to those who have seen the mountain of evidence against Chump.

Let's get this party started!

[Sky Jewels]

39. Nobody from his camp is even trying to deny the hush money thing.

The only thing they have is "Libtard Demonrats are playing politics!!!!!!!! OH NOES!!!!!!!! We would NEVER do that!!!!!"

[Aussie105]

41. The legal system will deal with Trump fairly and squarely.

Unless you are on some related jury, you can think either way because it isn't relevant.

But watching Trump over the years can only lead to one logical conclusion.

Strange thing is, Fox can bleat about Trump's innocence, but the rest of the media can't push the 'guilty as sin' line.

Sounds fair, right?

Hopefully, all the talking heads on Fox will spontaneously self-combust in the near future. And many MAGAts.

[hamsterjill]

42. The Star Chamber was an awesome movie.

I’ve often wished it were real…and even suspected at times that it might be.

And YES, Trump is guilty as sin - for this indictment AND a LOT more.

[Lisa0825]

58. I loved it too! I think it needs a remake! nt

[ProfessorGAC]

95. Me, Three

I thought it was a wonderfully taut thriller.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

108. That movie scared the crap out of me

Even in the 80s, I could see that we were headed toward something like that if the Rs stayed on the trajectory they were on.

It can happen here.

[Baked Potato]

44. True Dis'

[usonian]

45. A car is headed right towards me. Let me first find out what make, model, year and license.

Better! if the driver is under the influence, properly insured and licensed.

In the face of a clear and present danger *I* will act quickly no matter!

That is what the OP is talking about. A bomb is dangerous regardless if it lands near me accidentally or on purpose. I have the right to react in a way that protects me.

All these "facts" are pertinent to the highway patrol, duly appointed officers, and later, to a court, NOT TO THE FUCKING CORONER.

As for being extremely judicious, let the Buddha make the case:

Buddha tells a parable of a man who is shot by a poisoned arrow, but before the injured man will allow a doctor to remove the arrow, he insists on knowing the name of the archer, where the archer was from, what was the caste of the archer's family, where the arrow was made, what type of wood was used to form the arrow, etc. Such a man, the Buddha said, would die before learning the answers to his questions. In the same way, the Buddha said, the knowing the answers to certain metaphysical questions will not help one on the spiritual path.

I don't believe in prejudging a case IN COURT.

Question: This man is
A. A danger to all.
B. A harmless prankster ( April Fools!)

[Aussie105]

46. The reason most media are focussed on the hush money charge

is because there is wriggle room there.

Is it ok for a politician to pay a sex worker hush money?

Mmmm . . . let me think about that one, borderline case really. /sarcasm

With all the other charges there is no wriggle room, the evidence should be clear and irrefutable.

And that is why the MSM conveniently forget those other matters. No 'bothsiderisms' possible there.

The source of the hush money is only a snippet of the charges.

Fox is saying: Political witch hunt!
MSM saying: mmm, can't be sure!

Equally devious.

[spanone]

48. ...K&R...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. News doesn't realize we know 1,000,000% more than most people ! nt

[H2O Man]

55. Recommended.

I remember when I was young ..... one of my BCI Senuir Investigators haf solved a local case, where a shithead had raped & murdered a teenaged girl, and hide her body under hat in a barn. My uncle assisted the DA in the case. Before one meeting in chambers, the judge said, "Okay, let's give the guilty SOB his fair trial.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies exclusively yo within the context of the legal system. It doesn't apply to after the trial ..... one is only huilty or not huilty, never innocent. And it absolutely has no application in the court of public opinion.

For that matter, a juror (or potenyial juror) generally recognizes that the majority of individuals brought to trial are guilty. It's true that some innocent people do go to trial, but rather rare overall. It is up to the legal system either way. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An imperfect system, but still the best.

[stage left]

57. Agreed

Fuck him. He's guilty of this and many, many other crimes which include his depraved indifference to thousands of Americans dying of Covid.

[Meowmee]

60. Agree he is guilty of so many crimes

Will he ever pay for even one? It remains to be seen. Because this system is clearly COMPLETELY
flawed and dysfunctional. All this nonsense about presumed innocent until proven guilty, like there have never been any mistakes or injustices due this PERFECT system. What a crock.

We know the rich and influential are very often held above the so called law and have been for forever. Rules for thee and not for me.

If he is let off yet again, and not even charged for his most serious crimes, the murder of millions of Americans and others, that is the real crime here

[PCIntern]

61. Yep...

You’re on the money.

[treestar]

94. there's not above the law; it is more that

they can afford the extended investigation that might help their defense. Like in a murder case, a wealthy defendant can afford to hire a forensic expert who can find out things that create reasonable doubt, which the poor person cannot.

[Meowmee]

104. That is also true

But make no mistake about it, people of influence and wealth are also above the law, treated differently, and their crimes are so often let slide… pay offs, not charged, and much more.

[Skittles]

66. HEAR, HEAR

I remember reading about the "Central Park Five" way back then and thinking the "evidence" seemed pretty flimsy. They were young, male, and black and that was good enough for Trump to publicly pronounce them GUILTY.

[JPPaverage]

68. Not only that...

But we don't have to think this is "not good for the country", or whatever kind of crap they are spewing about that. This ain't tragic, I am celebrating, and if he goes to prison, it has taken too long.

[jaxexpat]

71. The Trump-justice-tour has us peeking under the skirt of the American legal system.

Revealing how, if one has the funds or powerful friends, one can use all the naughty bits designed to prevent or indefinitely delay a date with justice. One can even have the laws reinterpreted, ignored or selectively applied if enough pressure can be brought to bear on the pinch points where the frailty of appointments to petty (and not so petty) fiefdoms tend to stumble.

[bullimiami]

75. i was just yelling this out loud yesterday. NO! IDIOTS!! He has a LEGAL presumption of innocence.

That has nothing to do with what I believe from the information Ive absorbed.

Im pretty damn convinced he is a career criminal. There are scores, probably hundreds of people in jail for those exact crimes.

And guess what CNN, MSNBC and whoever the hell else.
You are not a court and you can say this preponderance of evidence leads me to believe he is guilty.
Our system often fails to convict the guilty and sometimes fails to acquit the innocent.

[peggysue2]

80. Hard to argue with this

The majority of Americans are exhausted by Trump's antics, corruption and criminality over the last 6-7 years. His guilt on a variety of issues has been public, even lethal in nature.

The gall of the man is his latest quip: They're not coming for me, they're coming for you.

Or Trump's True Believers insisting that 'yeah, if they can do this to Donald Trump, they can do this to us!'

They=the law, the authorities upholding the law. And yes, as private citizens if we had done a fraction of what Trump did out of greed, ignorance and vindictiveness, we would have had our rear ends thrown in jail long ago.

Thursday was a long day coming but it has arrived for The Donald. The day will be followed by many others as the wheels of justice begin to grind the man and hold him accountable. Sworn-in juries will decide his fate, the success of each case resting on the skill of the prosecutors and the hard evidence presented.

But anyone without blinders knows who and what Donald Trump was and still is: a conman, a grifter, a bigoted greed head who had a taste of true power and couldn't give it up, a man willing to burn the entire country down to save his own skin.

Karma, baby!

[pwb]

81. They never tire of being wrong for the owners.

Last edited Sat Apr 1, 2023, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

A grand jury of his peers found he most likely committed crimes. A trial jury will too IMO? I am hoping for international connections with Smiths investigation.

[Blue Owl]

82. K&R

[ProfessorGAC]

96. K&R

I am under no obligation to presume his innocence. The court system has that obligation.
I'll readily admit I think he did whatever the grand jurors think he did. The last 6+ years is evidence enough for me to believe he's guilty of these crimes, and that this list is small potatoes compared to other illegal things he's done.

[LiberalFighter]

103. There is no doubt about his guilt.

It is just a matter of all the pieces being put together to convict him.

They should end their closing along the line of if you don't convict him knowing that he did wrong you would let him off if he committed murder on Fifth Avenue.

[MichMan]

105. Hopefully they can seat a jury that understands