First charges filed in Mueller investigation (merged)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

More trash talk.

But as far as the National Review article, I don't see how having his original campaign manager indicted for money laundering and conspiring with Russia is a "boon" for Trump.  

Also, it is obviously premature at this point to claim Trump is innocent - or guilty - of anything.  

 

Not trash talk, Homer. Again, innocent until PROVEN guilty. We must, at all times, afford that phrase some meaning. Is that not right? It means something. Why won't you just recognize that the man is presumed innocent, and is innocent until said innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt? 

[HVAU 673]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not trash talk, Homer. Again, innocent until PROVEN guilty. We must, at all times, afford that phrase some meaning. Is that not right? It means something. Why won't you just recognize that the man is presumed innocent, and is innocent until said innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt? 

"Presumed innocence" and "is innocent" are not the same, but you are correct that Trump has not been proven guilty.  There is information that points to the potential for there have been grave misconduct ergo there is a special counsel investigation.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, HVAU said:

"Presumed innocence" and "is innocent" are not the same, but you are correct that Trump has not been proven guilty.  There is information that points to the potential for there have been grave misconduct ergo there is a special counsel investigation.

HVAU, comment well taken.

I am confident that I can make a good jurisprudential argument that the presumption of innocence and "is innocent" can be used interchangeably and has been in the court - by quoting O'Conner, Scalia, and other justices. Though understandably so, one phrase may be employed to connote the other by inference. 

[HVAU 673]

I know nothing about this source(could be a garbage rag), and haven't had time to research it, but this New Republic article is drawing a link to Sessions's comments under oath to CNN's information in an effort  to claim Sessions had perjured himself.  

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145614/looks-like-jeff-sessions-perjured-himself

'Sessions responded: “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities.”'

'George Papadopoulos’s guilty plea indicates that there were attempts in the Trump campaign to arrange a meeting with Putin, and that Sessions was aware of them. As CNN reports this morning, “The chairman of Trump’s national security team, then Alabama Senator and now Attorney General Jeff Sessions, shut down the idea of a Putin meeting at the March 31, 2016, gathering, according to the source. His reaction was confirmed with another source who had discussed Sessions’s role.”'

 

 

[AUDub 11,153]

7 minutes ago, HVAU said:

I know nothing about this source(could be a garbage rag), and haven't had time to research it, but this New Republic article is drawing a link to Sessions's comments under oath to CNN's information in an effort  to claim Sessions had perjured himself.  

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145614/looks-like-jeff-sessions-perjured-himself

'Sessions responded: “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities.”'

'George Papadopoulos’s guilty plea indicates that there were attempts in the Trump campaign to arrange a meeting with Putin, and that Sessions was aware of them. As CNN reports this morning, “The chairman of Trump’s national security team, then Alabama Senator and now Attorney General Jeff Sessions, shut down the idea of a Putin meeting at the March 31, 2016, gathering, according to the source. His reaction was confirmed with another source who had discussed Sessions’s role.”'

Legit source. Tends to do well on the facts, but it is colored with a left leaning perspective.

[homersapien 11,386]

21 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not trash talk, Homer. Again, innocent until PROVEN guilty. We must, at all times, afford that phrase some meaning. Is that not right? It means something. Why won't you just recognize that the man is presumed innocent, and is innocent until said innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt? 

Once again you are conflating innocence in the "legal" sense with innocence in the "real" sense.

Your logic would insist that OJ Simpson is innocent of murder.  That's simply not true.

Legal, presumed innocence is not the same as actual innocence. In fact, strictly speaking, one could say the same about guilt.

[homersapien 11,386]

21 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not trash talk, Homer. Again, innocent until PROVEN guilty. We must, at all times, afford that phrase some meaning. Is that not right? It means something. Why won't you just recognize that the man is presumed innocent, and is innocent until said innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt? 

Show me where I have said otherwise.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Once again you are conflating innocence in the "legal" sense with innocence in the "real" sense.

Your argument would insist that OJ Simpson is innocent of murder.  That's simply not true.

Or I could argue that OJ is innocent of murder BECAUSE THE JURY GOT IT WRONG. Completely different argument. Russia investigation v murder trial... Cmon Homer

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Show me where I have said otherwise.

No one here has. This isn't a smoking gun, and some folks on the left need to quit pretending Mueller will be the magic bullet to rid us of Trump.

What this did make clear, though, is that it shouldn't be handwaved away as a nothingburger. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Show me where I have said otherwise.

My reference is to what you haven't said, not what you have said

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Or I could argue that OJ is innocent of murder BECAUSE THE JURY GOT IT WRONG. Completely different argument. Russia investigation v murder trial... Cmon Homer

Juries do not find people innocent.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Juries do not find people innocent.

they acquit do they not?

[homersapien 11,386]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My reference is to what you haven't said, not what you have said

Well that certainly opens up the options for illogical statements on your part.   

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Pardon me, they acquit do they not?

There is a distinction between innocent and not guilty. Innocence is not something typically proven in a trial. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Gee, that really opens up the options for stupid statements, huh?  

Trash talk.

Wrong forum for that Homer

[homersapien 11,386]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Trash talk.

Wrong forum for that Homer

I fixed it.  Your illogic doesn't prove you are stupid - only if it persists in the light of explanation.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

There is a distinction between innocent and not guilty. Innocence is not something typically proven in a trial. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Innocence never has to be proven, in any criminal case. Yes, the presumption is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I fixed it.  Your illogic doesn't prove you are stupid - only if it persists in the light of explanation.

Thank you for fixing. You asked me to show where you have said otherwise, which is not necessary. Don't think too deep into it

[homersapien 11,386]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Innocence never has to be proven, in any criminal case. Yes, the presumption is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Legally speaking, that's correct.  But it has nothing to do with whether or not the suspect is actually innocent.

Like Ben said, the courts aquit suspects from the charges, they don't declare them to be "innocent".

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Innocence never has to be proven, in any criminal case. Yes, the presumption is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Correct, and it's a feature of our justice system, not a bug. But your statement that you could argue OJ's innocence is what's funny. It doesn't follow. 

Innocent means that he did not commit the crime.

Not guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that he did commit the crime.

There is a big difference between the two. In the US, we find defendants not guilty. This means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did in fact commit the crime. It doesn't mean he's innocent (I mean, come on!) it just means that his guilt couldn't be proven.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Legally speaking, that's correct.  But it has nothing to do with whether or not the suspect is actually innocent.

Like Ben said, the courts aquit suspects from the charges, they don't declare them to be "innocent".

Trump hasn't been charged. Speculation about his innocence really shouldn't even be in the air. If Mueller files against him, then sure, speculate. But right now, all we have is an investigation that really hasn't revealed anything directly implementing Trump collusion. 

[homersapien 11,386]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Or I could argue that OJ is innocent of murder BECAUSE THE JURY GOT IT WRONG. Completely different argument. Russia investigation v murder trial... Cmon Homer

No, it's logically the same argument. 

If the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty" can be equated with actual innocence, then a legal finding of not guilty can be equated with actual innocence.

And you are correct, sometimes the legal system gets it wrong.  In fact, that's the point.

 

[homersapien 11,386]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Thank you for fixing. You asked me to show where you have said otherwise, which is not necessary. Don't think too deep into it

Seems necessary to me.  You said:

Why won't you just recognize that the man is presumed innocent, and is innocent until said innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt? 

That's called "begging the question".    Are you retracting that?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Correct, and it's a feature of our justice system, not a bug. But your statement that you could argue OJ's innocence is what's funny. It doesn't follow. 

Innocent means that he did not commit the crime.

Not guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that he did commit the crime.

There is a big difference between the two. In the US, we find defendants not guilty. This means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did in fact commit the crime. It doesn't mean he's innocent (I mean, come on!) it just means that his guilt couldn't be proven.

Perhaps you read my statement wrong or I wasn't clear enough. I don't mean that I could argue OJ's innocence. I simply meant that the jury's acquittal was incorrect.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Correct, and it's a feature of our justice system, not a bug. But your statement that you could argue OJ's innocence is what's funny. It doesn't follow. 

Innocent means that he did not commit the crime.

Not guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that he did commit the crime.

There is a big difference between the two. In the US, we find defendants not guilty. This means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did in fact commit the crime. It doesn't mean he's innocent (I mean, come on!) it just means that his guilt couldn't be proven.

 A jury has the power to return a verdict of acquittal even though the jury believes that the defendant is legally guilty of an offense. This might occur if the jury believes that the criminal statute is immoral or unjust, that the defendant has been “punished enough” already, or that the police or prosecutors misbehaved in some manner.

Even if jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, can still bring back not guilty verdict