Trump has been Indicted

[douche]

Let this sink in: Donald Trump was indicted before anyone on Jeffrey Epstein's client list

As Andrew Dice Clay used to say... Un-fuckin-believable.

[gil]

A defense attorney's job is not to prove the defendant is 'not guilty'. Rather, it's the prosecutor's job to prove the defendant is guilty. The defense attorney is there to challenge the prosecution's allegations against the defendant and to protect the defendant's interest.

Do you mean, disprove the charge that the defendant is guilty? I accept that. But I don't know if it makes any substantive difference.

Just curious: When a jury announces a verdict, I'm pretty sure they say "guilty". But when the defendant is acquitted, do they say "we find the defendant innocent"? Or do they say "We find the defendant not guilty?"

NO!!! The burden of the proof is on the prosecution, period! This is required under the Presumption of Innocence. It's a black and white difference.

You are correct of course. In my defense, I was trying to make the point that the defense is not passive. What do they do? They refute the argument for guilt. Maybe I'm making a semantic error. Again, you are correct.

[douche]

NO!!! The burden of the proof is on the prosecution, period! This is required under the Presumption of Innocence. It's a black and white difference.

Doesn't appear as though the Presumption of Innocence factors into Trump's case. Pelosi herself said, "He will have to prove his innocence just like everyone else".

[gil]

Let this sink in: Donald Trump was indicted before anyone on Jeffrey Epstein's client list

As Andrew Dice Clay used to say... Un-fuckin-believable.

Is the same Manhattan DA handling those cases? Are there pending charges? I don't really know anything about this but I just remember it being a giant mess of slime and sleaze.

[Cascade Kid]

Do you mean, disprove the charge that the defendant is guilty? I accept that. But I don't know if it makes any substantive difference.

Just curious: When a jury announces a verdict, I'm pretty sure they say "guilty". But when the defendant is acquitted, do they say "we find the defendant innocent"? Or do they say "We find the defendant not guilty?"

NO!!! The burden of the proof is on the prosecution, period! This is required under the Presumption of Innocence. It's a black and white difference.

You are correct of course. In my defense, I was trying to make the point that the defense is not passive. What do they do? They refute the argument for guilt. Maybe I'm making a semantic error. Again, you are correct.

I know it is just a misunderstanding. To accuse by definition is to charge someone when that someone thinks another person did something wrong. Guilt is a verdict after the trial. Just like we can't go around calling the accused "aquitted" before the trial ends either.

[Cascade Kid]

NO!!! The burden of the proof is on the prosecution, period! This is required under the Presumption of Innocence. It's a black and white difference.

Doesn't appear as though the Presumption of Innocence factors into Trump's case. Pelosi herself said, "He will have to prove his innocence just like everyone else".

It should be known, the mindset of those we place in power.

You know what really pisses me off out prosecutors? Most arrests will not get properly vetted and investigated. The just have their charging department begin to write up plea deals hoping you take it and leverage a stiffer penalty against the accused if they decide to have their voices heard in front of a jury of their peers. It's just to streamline everything and to keep them from having to hire the right resources to actually investigate the accusations further, even when there are indifferent sides of the story. I'm sure judges would also pressure the prosecutor to not allow a bunch of these cases to hit their courts either. I'd say there might be a problem there too.

So in affect, Gil and Pelosi are not 100% inaccurate, even though in principle it is wrong.

[bpj]

2. If there WERE some sort of grand plan by Democrats to "get Trump", this case would not be the first to come to an indictment. It's a weak case, it's hard to understand at best.

Payoff, Payoff, Payoff
He grabs women by their pussies
He likes to be pissed on by hookers
Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia
Impeachment #1
Impeachment #2
January 6 hearings

From the time he announced he was running against Hillary, the press and ALL the Dems have been out to get him, spread rumors and lies.
PERIOD

Great summary

[bpj]

MTS comparing The Donald to Jesus...

"President Trump is joining some of the most incredible people in history being arrested today. Nelson Mandela was arrested; served time in prison. Jesus. Jesus was arrested and murdered by the Roman government," she said

Doesn't sound like a comparison.

Sounds like examples of governments persecuting people who were a threat to their agenda.

[bpj]

Yeah, if he wants to be a serious candidate for the presidency he needs to smile. I'm not trying to knock the guy, just observation. His supporters will always embrace him. But if he wants to attract the undecided, painting yourself as a victim might not be the best way to go about it

I suppose he could sniff childrens and womens hair…shower with his daughter and fall down stairs while losing his thought process on a daily basis. Throw in how many times he has shit himself in public….ya Trump has a long ways to go…




Or maybe it’s how the media controls the narrative……..Can’t be.

Exactly, great point!

[bpj]

Media controlling trump's narrative? There is this warm and friendly Donald there we just don't get to know, okay Listen, if you think he is on a roll to another presidency, okay, you very well could be correct. Like I said, I don't really even follow the thing.

Yes, absolutely.

They create hoaxes and go on nonstop about them for months, like the "Fine People" fiasco by deceptively editing what Trump says, but when he does something good, they'll spend 1 minute on it for one day.

https://youtu.be/3NRUJbivhnE