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

[Meister]

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're right, Sandusky did it, we know he did, there is evidence he did it. he did go to court, and we did find out what everyone knew. apples and submarines to the kavanaugh discussion.

so try again. tell us where someone was proven to be guilty without evidence. please, post it up for us all. come now junior, you've got it all and know it all. let's see it.

BTW, I can show where evidence said a man was guilty and 12 jurors said not guilty. Want to know that name?

Wow, you are dense.

You claim Kavanaugh was innocent because there was no court case.

If I murder someone & I don't get caught, am I innocent?

In the court of law you are, why?

 

[RealDave]

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

 

[Meister]

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

 

[Skylar]

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

Or the findings of 16 US intellegence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report.

 

[easyt65]

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

It depends....

If you are talking about the mythical collusion between Trump and Russians then NO, it's VERY ILLEGAL.

If you are talking about Hillary colluding with and paying foreign spies and Russians for their help in trying to win the Presidential election, then YES, it's legal.

If you are talking about a 7-minute meeting in which no information exchanged hands then NO, it is illegal and a crime.

If you are talking about a Russian-authored debunked report given to Hillary then given to the CIA, NIA, & FBI who all use the document illegally against Hillary's political opponent in an attempt to ensure she would win then YES, it is LEGAL - according to Democrats, liberals, & snowflakes none of that is illegal / criminal...

 

[boedicca]

I'll stick with the classics. Innocent Until Proven Guilty was good enough for citizens of Rome, it's good enough for us.

Don't mess with two millennia of Western Civilization's Progress regarding the Rights of the Individual.

So you believe Hillary is innocent?

You must have been pretty upset at all the “lock her up” chants towards an innocent woman.

I have observed plenty of proof that shows hiLIARy is guilty. I am a strong advocate for her to be put on trial for her crimes with the evidence presented out in the open in a proper court in accordance with due process under the rule of law.

I'll also note that the people changing "lock her up" at a political rally have not shown up on her doorstep to terrorize her.

This trope of equating a chant at a political rally with the actual Defamation-Terrorism campaign aimed at Kavanaugh is beyond tiresome and pathetically transparent.

 

[bripat9643]

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

Or the findings of 16 US intellegence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report.

You mean the findings of Jim Clapper, an Obama stooge. 14 of those intelligence agencies didn't even know about it until it became public.

 

[RealDave]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

That isn't just hyperbole. You can see the truth of it when you look at what they do on college campuses. Male students accused of sex offenses are often not even allowed to defend themselves. They aren't allowed to question their accusers, and the standard of evidence is much lower than in a real trial. Obama supported these kangaroo courts.

Progs are the scum of the earth.

Lying fuck.

Colleges have their own rules of conduct. If you don't like them, go to another school,

I know of no college that listens only to one side. You are lying.

Public universities that are funded by the taxpayers are not entitled to establish their own rules of evidence that violate the Constitution. Anyone who says they can is a fascist piece of shit.

They certainly do set their own rules for student conduct.. Their decisions are not the same being prosecuted in court.
Furthermore, asswipe, people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser because there is no physical evidence or other witnesses.

If it were up to you, Jerry Sandusky would still be molesting little boys.

This stupid fucking idea that there must be physical proof or outside witnesses is a fucking myth you dumbasses just made up to protect weasels like Kavanaugh & women assaulters like Trump.

'

 

[Montrovant]

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

No, they aren't. But you can't claim to have the 'will of the people' behind you when far more of them voted for the other person than yourself.

It doesn’t matter.

It most certainly matters if you're claiming that you have the 'will of the people' behind you.

Winning the presidency means you have the will of the electoral college behind you. As the popular vote demonstrated, the people wanted someone else.

Let's be clear: even winning the popular vote only, at best, indicates the will of the voters, not the people. According to this chart of the US population, there are about 242 million voting age adults, but only around 130 million votes were cast. Population Distribution by Age

 

[easyt65]

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

Or the findings of 16 US intellegence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report.

Much like what the Democrats had on Kavanaugh, no evidence ... After 2 years ... Except criminal evidence against Hillary, Democrats, and the investigators....

 

[Skylar]

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

Or the findings of 16 US intellegence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report.

You mean the findings of Jim Clapper, an Obama stooge. 14 of those intelligence agencies didn't even know about it until it became public.

So by your reckoning, 2 US intelligence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report. The latter lead by a republican. And no US intelligence agencies disputing the findings of the US intel agencies or the Senate Intel Committee report.

Give us your next excuse for pretending that the Russian government didn't aid Trump.

 

[Skylar]

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

Or the findings of 16 US intellegence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report.

Much like what the Democrats had on Kavanaugh, no evidence ... After 2 years ... Except criminal evidence against Hillary, Democrats, and the investigators....

You're claiming there is no evidence that Russia attacked the US to aid Trump?

I want you on record.

 

[Montrovant]

You're clearly just looking to make your own assumptions here.

that is a fact. Civilization has moved to civility and proof is needed to convict. not just in a trial. so don't go spanking your wanker around like it isn't. it is our society that innocent until proven guilty is how we assimilate in our neighborhoods.

You can tell yourself that, but from what I've seen, an unfortunately large portion of the population is perfectly comfortable considering people guilty until proven innocent if they fit into the proper box. Even if society doesn't do that, this board certainly does!

At best, people have very different definitions of what proof is. More commonly, IMO, people are more than willing to look at things through the lens of partisanship or bigotry.

I will live my life that way indeed. I will even give fks like you the benefit of a doubt. Cause I believe in not trusting another human being. It's been proven through history and why society moved to its current position of innocent until proven guilty. Again, sane humans require evidence to ruin another's life. you don't, well good for you. I' will still give you the benefit of a doubt.

You really ought to actually read the posts you reply to.

I have not said that I don't require evidence to ruin someone's life. I haven't said I don't believe in using the concept of innocent until proven guilty in my personal life. I've pointed out that society in general all too often seems to use guilty until proven innocent, if the person being accused is part of the 'wrong' group. You are continuously trying to take my comments about what I see in other people and make it seem as though I have said those are my personal opinions, despite my comments to the contrary.

If you want to argue with yourself, have at it.

you only used public opinion. that isn't anything. Society uses innocent until proven guilty in government and private jobs. No one, loses a job over an accusation without evidence. so until you can post something other than a leftist opinion, and not a practical experience, then you have no experience that uses guilty until proven innocent. none, not one.

I would guess that quite a few people have lost jobs over accusations without proof. More accurately in this instance, I imagine there have been people who have not gotten jobs because of accusations without proof. I doubt it's all that common, but a Supreme Court confirmation is not common.

In politics particularly, though, unfounded accusations are certainly nothing new. Do you think that no one has ever been passed over for a job, particularly a political office, because of unfounded accusations?

 

[bripat9643]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

That isn't just hyperbole. You can see the truth of it when you look at what they do on college campuses. Male students accused of sex offenses are often not even allowed to defend themselves. They aren't allowed to question their accusers, and the standard of evidence is much lower than in a real trial. Obama supported these kangaroo courts.

Progs are the scum of the earth.

Lying fuck.

Colleges have their own rules of conduct. If you don't like them, go to another school,

I know of no college that listens only to one side. You are lying.

Public universities that are funded by the taxpayers are not entitled to establish their own rules of evidence that violate the Constitution. Anyone who says they can is a fascist piece of shit.

They certainly do set their own rules for student conduct.. Their decisions are not the same being prosecuted in court.
Furthermore, asswipe, people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser because there is no physical evidence or other witnesses.

If it were up to you, Jerry Sandusky would still be molesting little boys.

This stupid fucking idea that there must be physical proof or outside witnesses is a fucking myth you dumbasses just made up to protect weasels like Kavanaugh & women assaulters like Trump.

'

I know they set their own rules of evidence, and that needs to end. Public universities should be required to follow the Constitution, and under this president they are.

You'll have to prove that "people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser," That doesn't meet constitutional muster. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and convicting based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser doesn't meet that standard.

Your theory that you can be burned at the stake simply because someone points at you and shouts "witch!" is the mark of a barbarian.

 

[Skylar]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

That isn't just hyperbole. You can see the truth of it when you look at what they do on college campuses. Male students accused of sex offenses are often not even allowed to defend themselves. They aren't allowed to question their accusers, and the standard of evidence is much lower than in a real trial. Obama supported these kangaroo courts.

Progs are the scum of the earth.

Lying fuck.

Colleges have their own rules of conduct. If you don't like them, go to another school,

I know of no college that listens only to one side. You are lying.

Public universities that are funded by the taxpayers are not entitled to establish their own rules of evidence that violate the Constitution. Anyone who says they can is a fascist piece of shit.

They certainly do set their own rules for student conduct.. Their decisions are not the same being prosecuted in court.
Furthermore, asswipe, people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser because there is no physical evidence or other witnesses.

If it were up to you, Jerry Sandusky would still be molesting little boys.

This stupid fucking idea that there must be physical proof or outside witnesses is a fucking myth you dumbasses just made up to protect weasels like Kavanaugh & women assaulters like Trump.

'

I know they set their own rules of evidence, and that needs to end. Public universities should be required to follow the Constitution, and under this president they are.

And show us what part of the constitution is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Specifically.

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't just hyperbole. You can see the truth of it when you look at what they do on college campuses. Male students accused of sex offenses are often not even allowed to defend themselves. They aren't allowed to question their accusers, and the standard of evidence is much lower than in a real trial. Obama supported these kangaroo courts.

Progs are the scum of the earth.

Lying fuck.

Colleges have their own rules of conduct. If you don't like them, go to another school,

I know of no college that listens only to one side. You are lying.

Public universities that are funded by the taxpayers are not entitled to establish their own rules of evidence that violate the Constitution. Anyone who says they can is a fascist piece of shit.

They certainly do set their own rules for student conduct.. Their decisions are not the same being prosecuted in court.
Furthermore, asswipe, people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser because there is no physical evidence or other witnesses.

If it were up to you, Jerry Sandusky would still be molesting little boys.

This stupid fucking idea that there must be physical proof or outside witnesses is a fucking myth you dumbasses just made up to protect weasels like Kavanaugh & women assaulters like Trump.

'

I know they set their own rules of evidence, and that needs to end. Public universities should be required to follow the Constitution, and under this president they are.

And show us what part of the constitution is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Specifically.

The Fifth Amendment, dumbass. You are entitled to due process of law from every branch of the government. That includes government subsidized universities.

 

[Skylar]

Lying fuck.

Colleges have their own rules of conduct. If you don't like them, go to another school,

I know of no college that listens only to one side. You are lying.

Public universities that are funded by the taxpayers are not entitled to establish their own rules of evidence that violate the Constitution. Anyone who says they can is a fascist piece of shit.

They certainly do set their own rules for student conduct.. Their decisions are not the same being prosecuted in court.
Furthermore, asswipe, people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser because there is no physical evidence or other witnesses.

If it were up to you, Jerry Sandusky would still be molesting little boys.

This stupid fucking idea that there must be physical proof or outside witnesses is a fucking myth you dumbasses just made up to protect weasels like Kavanaugh & women assaulters like Trump.

'

I know they set their own rules of evidence, and that needs to end. Public universities should be required to follow the Constitution, and under this president they are.

And show us what part of the constitution is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Specifically.

The Fifth Amendment, dumbass. You are entitled to due process of law from every branch of the government. That includes government subsidized universities.

Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument.

Here's the 5th amendment. Highlight the portions being ejected from a university violate:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

 

[bripat9643]

Public universities that are funded by the taxpayers are not entitled to establish their own rules of evidence that violate the Constitution. Anyone who says they can is a fascist piece of shit.

They certainly do set their own rules for student conduct.. Their decisions are not the same being prosecuted in court.
Furthermore, asswipe, people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser because there is no physical evidence or other witnesses.

If it were up to you, Jerry Sandusky would still be molesting little boys.

This stupid fucking idea that there must be physical proof or outside witnesses is a fucking myth you dumbasses just made up to protect weasels like Kavanaugh & women assaulters like Trump.

'

I know they set their own rules of evidence, and that needs to end. Public universities should be required to follow the Constitution, and under this president they are.

And show us what part of the constitution is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Specifically.

The Fifth Amendment, dumbass. You are entitled to due process of law from every branch of the government. That includes government subsidized universities.

Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument.

Here's the 5th amendment. Highlight the portions being ejected from a university violate:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

"Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument."

Of course they are, you fucking dumbass. Your argument goes off the rails right there. No point in even reading any further.

 

[Skylar]

They certainly do set their own rules for student conduct.. Their decisions are not the same being prosecuted in court.
Furthermore, asswipe, people are convicted of sex crimes all the time based solely on verbal testimony from the accuser because there is no physical evidence or other witnesses.

If it were up to you, Jerry Sandusky would still be molesting little boys.

This stupid fucking idea that there must be physical proof or outside witnesses is a fucking myth you dumbasses just made up to protect weasels like Kavanaugh & women assaulters like Trump.

'

I know they set their own rules of evidence, and that needs to end. Public universities should be required to follow the Constitution, and under this president they are.

And show us what part of the constitution is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Specifically.

The Fifth Amendment, dumbass. You are entitled to due process of law from every branch of the government. That includes government subsidized universities.

Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument.

Here's the 5th amendment. Highlight the portions being ejected from a university violate:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

"Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument."

Of course they are, you fucking dumbass. Your argument goes off the rails right there. No point in even reading any further.

No, Universities aren't any branch of government.

And of course you couldn't find any portion of the 5th amendment that is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Nor could you answer this cartoon simple question: Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

Run along.

 

[eagle1462010]

If it's not an independent investigation it's not impartial

Who says it wasn't an independant investigation?

Let me guess, the same hapless soul that insisted that the investigation wasn't impartial, citing himself?

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about. While the IG does.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.

8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....

And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?

While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.

Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...

not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....

All A-OK with you eh?

Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?

Put her in front of a real court room and not the Circus Courts of Capital hill...............and press charges for the mishandling of Classified Information...........

Then see how it goes..............LOL