Is it Time to Change the Rule of Law in America?

[easyt65]

Meister is actually exposing the a-holes who pulled this shit. He doesn't buy it, either. I respect him for that.

I am going to piggy-back off his post and give a little demo for everyone....


Meister...

...according to a letter being passed around (through everyone's inbox on USM), you are engaged in the human sex slave trafficking of little children and money laundering for the human traffickers. (NOT TRUE - JUST AN EXAMPLE / DEMO)

This information should be released to the local and national media as well as to the FBI...the media should put this out...on the hour every hour..

Since you are GUILTY of these crimes until proven innocent, according to dictated liberal justice system rules:

- All of your financial assets (bank accounts, stocks, investments" etc...) should be frozen so you can not access any of the money (to leave the country, most probably)...until you can prove your innocence...

- Child Protective Services should immediately come to your house and take your kids into protective custody until you can prove you don't participate in the kidnapping, transportation, and sexually molesting and prostitution of small children...

- Your bosses need to be told about this

- Your kids' school will need to be notified

- Your associates and friends will need to be interviewed...dating back to the time you were in middle school...

- All of your social media should be checked, all Amazon searches / purchases searched, all of your browser history since you were 12 should be checked for searches of anything sexual in nature...

Since the burden of proof is on you ... and you are already 'GUILTY' until you can prove you are not ... have fun with all of this.


So, does ANYONE REALLY want this to become the new 'NORM'?

 

[Meister]

I'm saying just what I posted. Legally, everyone is presumed innocent until convicted of a crime; that includes Kavanaugh.

So Jerry Sandusky never molested anyone until his trial ended with a guilty verdict?

No, Sandusky was legally presumed innocent until his trial ended with a guilty verdict. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this, it's a pretty basic concept of the US legal system. Whether or not someone is actually guilty of a crime, the justice system is supposed to presume their innocence until such a time as they are convicted. That does not mean that someone did not commit a crime until they are convicted, just that the justice system presumes they did not until they are convicted.

So he never molested those boys until after the trial?

'How the fuck did you get so stupid.

Sandusky WAS guilty. From his first molestation he was guilty.

You assume innocence in a court of law. It is the starting point of a trial.

This is not a court pf law.

Sandusky was a child molester the first time he did it.

His accusers did not have witnesses. They did not have proof, Yet Sandusky WAS indeed guilty..

I believe Ford. I did not believe Kavanuagh. So I think Kavanaugh did indeed assault Ford. Is it provable in court? Maybe. But to me he is guilty based on what I heard.

I would not have hired Kavanaugh with his testimony. Not so much for something he did when he was in high school but for his lies, dishonesty, & demeanor.

Certainly we have better options in this country.

Go back and reread what he stated, your comprehension skills seem to be turned off today.

I know what you wrote. You can't seem to distinguish the presumption of innocence for a court case & innocence in real life.

You think Sandusky was innocent until found iiulty in court but in reality he was guilty before the trial even started.

He did it., He molested those kids. He did it whether or not some court said so.

Kavanaugh was NOT on trial. There can be no proof. That does not make Kavanaugh innocent.

According to you every murderer, rapist, theif never ever committed those crimes because they were never caught. That is pretty damn stupid.

I didn't write it, Montovant did. He wasn't stating that he thought Sandusky was innocent. He said legally a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Which is the point of discussion, you seem to want a person to prove his innocence and not an accuser prove his guilt.

 

[Meister]

Meister...

You want to have a discussion? Ok...

(Little Demonstration)

...according to a letter being passed around (through everyone's inbox on USM), you are engaged in the human sex slave trafficking of little children and money laundering for the human traffickers.

This information should be released to the local and national media as well as to the FBI...the media should put this out...on the hour every hour..

Since you are GUILTY of these crimes until proven innocent, according to dictated liberal justice system rules:

- All of your financial assets (bank accounts, stocks, investments" etc...) should be frozen so you can not access any of the money (to leave the country, most probably)...until you can prove your innocence...

- Child Protective Services should immediately come to your house and take your kids into protective custody until you can prove you don't participate in the kidnapping, transportation, and sexually molesting and prostitution of small children...

- Your bosses need to be told about this

- Your kids' school will need to be notified

- Your associates and friends will need to be interviewed...dating back to the time you were in middle school...

- All of your social media should be checked, all Amazon searches / purchases searched, all of your browser history since you were 12 should be checked for searches of anything sexual in nature...

Since the burden of proof is on you ... and you are already 'GUILTY' until you can prove you are not ... have fun with all of this.


So, you REALLY want this to become the new 'NORM'?

You and Dave have the same comprehension level, easy. Put the bong down.
I never said that I wanted anything other than innocent until proven guilty. Do You Understand That???? I Can Go Slower If You Need Me To.
I put this thread up to find where our liberal members stand on this issue. Do You Understand?
What went on in DC was a sham and no more than a political game by the democrats. Do You Understand?
Good grief, dude

 

[easyt65]

Meister...

You want to have a discussion? Ok...

(Little Demonstration)

...according to a letter being passed around (through everyone's inbox on USM), you are engaged in the human sex slave trafficking of little children and money laundering for the human traffickers.

This information should be released to the local and national media as well as to the FBI...the media should put this out...on the hour every hour..

Since you are GUILTY of these crimes until proven innocent, according to dictated liberal justice system rules:

- All of your financial assets (bank accounts, stocks, investments" etc...) should be frozen so you can not access any of the money (to leave the country, most probably)...until you can prove your innocence...

- Child Protective Services should immediately come to your house and take your kids into protective custody until you can prove you don't participate in the kidnapping, transportation, and sexually molesting and prostitution of small children...

- Your bosses need to be told about this

- Your kids' school will need to be notified

- Your associates and friends will need to be interviewed...dating back to the time you were in middle school...

- All of your social media should be checked, all Amazon searches / purchases searched, all of your browser history since you were 12 should be checked for searches of anything sexual in nature...

Since the burden of proof is on you ... and you are already 'GUILTY' until you can prove you are not ... have fun with all of this.


So, you REALLY want this to become the new 'NORM'?

You and Dave have the same comprehension level, easy. Put the bong down.
I never said that I wanted anything other than innocent until proven guilty. Do You Understand That???? I Can Go Slower If You Need Me To.
I put this thread up to find where our liberal members stand on this issue. Do You Understand?
What went on in DC was a sham and no more than a political game by the democrats. Do You Understand?
Good grief, dude

I know...re-read my post...the start.

You don't buy the crap - you are 'calling out the a-holes....and my post was 'piggy-backing off of yours. Sorry I used you as the individual in the narrative....I did so because you were the OP and this was your thread. That's all.

 

[yiostheoy]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

So you want to be like France and Mexico ??

Guilty until proven innocent !?

 

[easyt65]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

So you want to be like France and Mexico ??

Guilty until proven innocent !?

Not Meister...but that is what Snowflakes seem to want and what Meis is making fun of.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

So you want to be like France and Mexico ??

Guilty until proven innocent !?

I like Idaho
Me? Innocent until proven guilty

 

[Montrovant]

I was under the impression it is the legislative branch, not the judicial, that is voting on this confirmation.

It's the concept, Montrovant. It's not limited to the judicial in concept.
Concept: an abstract idea; a general notion.

Certainly the concept of innocent until proven guilty can be applied outside of trials. I would never deny that. However, you made the thread title specifically about the rule of law, and there is no law I am aware of that requires representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty in confirmation voting.

More, you specifically mentioned the judicial system in the OP, and asked if it was time to change the judicial system, despite this confirmation being in the legislature.

As I just said in another post, I think your argument is a moral one, but you've set it up as as legal one. Unless there is some law that directs representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty, that does not apply in this instance.

Maybe we should specifically apply the concept to these confirmation hearings and make it a legal issue, but I don't believe it is for now.

To be clear, as far as the specific accusations against Kavanaugh are concerned, I personally tend to look at them through an innocent until proven guilty lens. I have not seen or heard enough evidence to decide the man is guilty.

where does guilty until proven innocent work in our society?

Where did I say that it works anywhere in society?

well you said innocent until proven guilty was only for trials. so where outside of trials is guilty until proven innocent?

And I also want one of you lefitist's to show one person on earth that has offered to help an accuser to find evidence on them?

I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.

More, guilty until proven innocent is not the only alternative. One need not presume guilt or innocence.

Where is guilty until proven innocent used? In the court of public opinion, particularly where things like partisan politics are in play. Kavanaugh is just the latest.

Finally, I am neither a leftist nor have I even hinted about an accuser helping someone find evidence against them. I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but it's clearly not the content of my posts.

 

[jc456]

It's the concept, Montrovant. It's not limited to the judicial in concept.
Concept: an abstract idea; a general notion.

Certainly the concept of innocent until proven guilty can be applied outside of trials. I would never deny that. However, you made the thread title specifically about the rule of law, and there is no law I am aware of that requires representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty in confirmation voting.

More, you specifically mentioned the judicial system in the OP, and asked if it was time to change the judicial system, despite this confirmation being in the legislature.

As I just said in another post, I think your argument is a moral one, but you've set it up as as legal one. Unless there is some law that directs representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty, that does not apply in this instance.

Maybe we should specifically apply the concept to these confirmation hearings and make it a legal issue, but I don't believe it is for now.

To be clear, as far as the specific accusations against Kavanaugh are concerned, I personally tend to look at them through an innocent until proven guilty lens. I have not seen or heard enough evidence to decide the man is guilty.

where does guilty until proven innocent work in our society?

Where did I say that it works anywhere in society?

well you said innocent until proven guilty was only for trials. so where outside of trials is guilty until proven innocent?

And I also want one of you lefitist's to show one person on earth that has offered to help an accuser to find evidence on them?

I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.

More, guilty until proven innocent is not the only alternative. One need not presume guilt or innocence.

Where is guilty until proven innocent used? In the court of public opinion, particularly where things like partisan politics are in play. Kavanaugh is just the latest.

Finally, I am neither a leftist nor have I even hinted about an accuser helping someone find evidence against them. I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but it's clearly not the content of my posts.

not my public opinion. yours? it's what you believe? name someone who believes with you that can justify the opinion?

 

[Montrovant]

I'm saying just what I posted. Legally, everyone is presumed innocent until convicted of a crime; that includes Kavanaugh.

So Jerry Sandusky never molested anyone until his trial ended with a guilty verdict?

No, Sandusky was legally presumed innocent until his trial ended with a guilty verdict. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this, it's a pretty basic concept of the US legal system. Whether or not someone is actually guilty of a crime, the justice system is supposed to presume their innocence until such a time as they are convicted. That does not mean that someone did not commit a crime until they are convicted, just that the justice system presumes they did not until they are convicted.

So he never molested those boys until after the trial?

'How the fuck did you get so stupid.

Sandusky WAS guilty. From his first molestation he was guilty.

You assume innocence in a court of law. It is the starting point of a trial.

This is not a court pf law.

Sandusky was a child molester the first time he did it.

His accusers did not have witnesses. They did not have proof, Yet Sandusky WAS indeed guilty..

I believe Ford. I did not believe Kavanuagh. So I think Kavanaugh did indeed assault Ford. Is it provable in court? Maybe. But to me he is guilty based on what I heard.

I would not have hired Kavanaugh with his testimony. Not so much for something he did when he was in high school but for his lies, dishonesty, & demeanor.

Certainly we have better options in this country.

Go back and reread what he stated, your comprehension skills seem to be turned off today.

I know what you wrote. You can't seem to distinguish the presumption of innocence for a court case & innocence in real life.

You think Sandusky was innocent until found iiulty in court but in reality he was guilty before the trial even started.

He did it., He molested those kids. He did it whether or not some court said so.

Kavanaugh was NOT on trial. There can be no proof. That does not make Kavanaugh innocent.

According to you every murderer, rapist, theif never ever committed those crimes because they were never caught. That is pretty damn stupid.

You know what he wrote so well that you appear to be conflating his posts with mine.

To answer your ridiculous posts, I never said anything about Sandusky not having molested anyone until he was found guilty. What I said is that the justice system in the US presumed that he was innocent until he was found guilty. That is the way it works here. Are you not aware of how the idea of innocent until proven guilty works?

I never said Kavanaugh was on trial.

I never said, nor hinted, that someone did not commit a crime if they were not caught. Once again, what I said is that the legal system presumes a person did not commit a crime until such time as they are convicted of it.

Feel free to continue arguing about things I haven't said, though!

 

[easyt65]

...in fact, I think it would be AWESOME if several people came forward to declare that Diane Feinstein regularly met with ChiComm leaders and her Chinese Spy of 20 years at her home in Clifornia...claiming they were witnesses....

Lets say an illegal claiming to have been hired by Feinstein as her gardener / grounds-keeper claims he overheard their conversations with them as they spoke of espionage and her betraying the US...

...how they net and talked outside because she did not trust the Govt after Barry and Brennan were caught spying on her and other Senators...

The fact that the gardener can't remember the exact date ... or YEAR of the meetings in the last 20 years is irrelevant...

The fact that others the gardener identifies as having been corroborating witnesses can not be found because of deportation or hiding in some Sanctuary City, unwilling to testify against a US Senator when they are here in the country illegally - none if that matters...

ALL THAT MATTERS IS FEINSTEIN IS GUILTY OF ESPIOBAGE AND TREADON DUE TO AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION, BECAUSE SHE US ' GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT', BECAUSE THE BURDEN IF PROOF FALLS ON HER, THE ACCUSED, NIT THE ACCUSER!

Freeze all of her assets.

Raid her homes, offices - at home and abroad, her private plane, etc...

Begin investigating her old ass' whole life dating back to the 'little house in the prairie' days for ANYTHING criminal....

Go after her husband - all of his connections, businesses, social media, entire history...

If Democrats want to 'Go there', let's start with the one who really started it all by releasing an unsubstantiated rumor...

 

[Montrovant]

Certainly the concept of innocent until proven guilty can be applied outside of trials. I would never deny that. However, you made the thread title specifically about the rule of law, and there is no law I am aware of that requires representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty in confirmation voting.

More, you specifically mentioned the judicial system in the OP, and asked if it was time to change the judicial system, despite this confirmation being in the legislature.

As I just said in another post, I think your argument is a moral one, but you've set it up as as legal one. Unless there is some law that directs representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty, that does not apply in this instance.

Maybe we should specifically apply the concept to these confirmation hearings and make it a legal issue, but I don't believe it is for now.

To be clear, as far as the specific accusations against Kavanaugh are concerned, I personally tend to look at them through an innocent until proven guilty lens. I have not seen or heard enough evidence to decide the man is guilty.

where does guilty until proven innocent work in our society?

Where did I say that it works anywhere in society?

well you said innocent until proven guilty was only for trials. so where outside of trials is guilty until proven innocent?

And I also want one of you lefitist's to show one person on earth that has offered to help an accuser to find evidence on them?

I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.

More, guilty until proven innocent is not the only alternative. One need not presume guilt or innocence.

Where is guilty until proven innocent used? In the court of public opinion, particularly where things like partisan politics are in play. Kavanaugh is just the latest.

Finally, I am neither a leftist nor have I even hinted about an accuser helping someone find evidence against them. I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but it's clearly not the content of my posts.

not my public opinion. yours? it's what you believe? name someone who believes with you that can justify the opinion?

What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent? Go look at any accusation against a public figure, you'll probably find people who believe they are guilty simply because of some characteristic about that person: politics, gender, race, where they work, etc. I'm not trying to support the idea of guilty until proven innocent, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.

 

[easyt65]

I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.

Vile Democrats seek to justify their immoral, unethical, despicable acts of attempting to use their surrogate liberal media to try to destroy US citizens in the 'court of public opinion' using lies, unsubstantiated rumors, and bullshit - like they tried to do with Kavanaugh, generating ignorant support from easily emotionally manipulated sheep who don't know or care about actual facts and / or evidence ... Sheep bought / manipulated by SOROS.

ANY govt official found to be doing / have done what Feinstein did - abuse her office / power to attempt to publicly destroy a US citizen for personal / party political gain - should be CENSURED at the very least, if not immediately removed from office.

 

[easyt65]

What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent?

Diane Feinstein INTENTIONALLY attempted to use her position / power / influence, with the help of the liberal media, to GENERATE / MANUFACTURE / MANIPULATE public opinion, just as Soros attempted to do with his fully-funded anti-Kavanaugh circus, based on KNOWN unsubstantiated rumor!

When she began catching hell for holding on to this rumor for 6 weeks, not doing anything with it, and then releasing it at the most politically opportune time for Democrats, Pelosi began at tempting to distance herself from the entire thing by publicly claiming that even he did not believe all of Ford's claims.

By doing so, she just admitted that she intentionally held onto and then released and unsubstantiated rumor that she didn't even believe... meaning she basically admitted to initiating this whole lying, bullshit strategy designed to destroy Cavanaugh, derail his confirmation, and, if nothing else, delay it until after the midterms.

The public did not attempt to generate this public opinion. The Democrats tried to create this public opinion based off of their unsubstantiated rumor without any evidence and without any Witnesses. The Democrats, led by Feinstein, tried to play the Gruber stupid Democrat voters, as well as the rest of the country, again.

This time it failed ... horribly ... for them.

 

[eagle1462010]

According to Ford it was attempted Rape and in Fear for her life.........

Go to Maryland..............File a complaint...........or shut the hell up.........

On the form for the complaint..........it requires WHEN and WHERE........

So if you turkeys really have something here.............Get on with it...........your boring me.

 

[Skylar]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

 

[Skylar]

According to Ford it was attempted Rape and in Fear for her life.........

Go to Maryland..............File a complaint...........or shut the hell up.........

On the form for the complaint..........it requires WHEN and WHERE........

So if you turkeys really have something here.............Get on with it...........your boring me.

Attempted Rape was a misdemenor in Maryland until 1996. It had a one year statute of limitations. She couldn't file if she wanted to.

Again, presumption of innocence is for criminal trials. Which this wasn't. And Kavanaugh was facing an investigation. Not criminal penalty. While Trump and his supporters were calling for imprisonment for Hillary Clinton for a crime she's not even charged with.

 

[basquebromance]

if we desire respect for our laws, my friends, we must make our laws respectable!

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assassination

Please learn the difference.

 

[Meister]

According to Ford it was attempted Rape and in Fear for her life.........

Go to Maryland..............File a complaint...........or shut the hell up.........

On the form for the complaint..........it requires WHEN and WHERE........

So if you turkeys really have something here.............Get on with it...........your boring me.

Attempted Rape was a misdemenor in Maryland until 1996. It had a one year statute of limitations. She couldn't file if she wanted to.

Again, presumption of innocence is for criminal trials. Which this wasn't. And Kavanaugh was facing an investigation. Not criminal penalty. While Trump and his supporters were calling for imprisonment for Hillary Clinton for a crime she's not even charged with.

I would settle for an IMPARTIAL investigation of Hillary