SCOTUS: Trump's Crowning Achievement, ... So Far.

[MagicMike]

indictment is not evidence of a damn thing.

Still wrong.
Indictments are "evidence" that enough evidence exists to charge someone with a crime and (most likely) get them convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.
And that's exactly where we are currently with Trump's numerous criminal indictments.
The evidence the prosecutor will present to the jury is contained in the indictments.
The jury will see that evidence.
Trump's defense team's challenge will be to convince the jury that Trump is not guilty of illegally taking classified materials from The White House to Florida and then obstructing The National Archive's (and FBI's) attempts to recover that material in addition to multiple violations of The Espionage Act when he improperly shared this material with people who lacked the security clearance to view it.
Part of the prosecutions evidence no doubt consists of witness testimony, video surveillance, photographs, audio recording of Trump explaining that he is committing the crimes AS he is committing them, and Trump's own quotes in interviews where he admits to possessing these materials beleiving (erroneously) that they are "his."

The questions are very simple and straightforward.
Did Trump have the material?
Yes.
Was Trump authorized to have the material?
No.
Was the material stored properly?
No.
Did Trump return all the material once requested to do so?
No.
Did Trump obstruct justice when he ignored a lawful subpoena ordering him to return said materials?
Yes.
Did Trump show the classified documents to others who lacked the authorization to view it?
Yes
And so on.

Then, after the prosecution presents it's evidence of Trump's guilt....and Trump has presented his defense against the crimes he is charged with...then the jury will decide his fate.

According to you it should go something like this:
Judge: "Mr. Trump do you have anything to say to the evidence against you that we've heard today?"
Trump:"Yes Your Honor, I am innocent until proven guilty."
Judge: "Fair enough. OK Madam Jury Foreman, does the jury have a verdict?"
Jury Foreman: "We do Your Honor"
Judge: "Please read that verdict."
Jury Foreman: "Guilty Your Honor."

And THEN, at this point....BackAgain will switch his line of BULLSHIT to....wait for it......
"NUH-UH!
THE JURY WAS WRONG!
HE'S NOT REALLY GUILTY!"

"But BackAgain....you SAID he's innocent until proven guilty....so now a jury has found him GUILTY....so that's it!"

Back Again: "Nuh-uh, doesn't count.
Wasn't a credible jury."

Good GOD!
It is SO TEDIOUS talking to clueless twits!

At any rate BrokeAgain, you are welcome for the lesson here.
Consider yourself schooled again!

 

[BackAgain]

Still wrong.
Indictments are "evidence" that enough evidence exists to charge someone with a crime and (most likely) get them convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.
And that's exactly where we are currently with Trump's numerous criminal indictments.
The evidence the prosecutor will present to the jury is contained in the indictments.
The jury will see that evidence.
Trump's defense team's challenge will be to convince the jury that Trump is not guilty of illegally taking classified materials from The White House to Florida and then obstructing The National Archive's (and FBI's) attempts to recover that material in addition to multiple violations of The Espionage Act when he improperly shared this material with people who lacked the security clearance to view it.
Part of the prosecutions evidence no doubt consists of witness testimony, video surveillance, photographs, audio recording of Trump explaining that he is committing the crimes AS he is committing them, and Trump's own quotes in interviews where he admits to possessing these materials beleiving (erroneously) that they are "his."

The questions are very simple and straightforward.
Did Trump have the material?
Yes.
Was Trump authorized to have the material?
No.
Was the material stored properly?
No.
Did Trump return all the material once requested to do so?
No.
Did Trump obstruct justice when he ignored a lawful subpoena ordering him to return said materials?
Yes.
Did Trump show the classified documents to others who lacked the authorization to view it?
Yes
And so on.

Then, after the prosecution presents it's evidence of Trump's guilt....and Trump has presented his defense against the crimes he is charged with...then the jury will decide his fate.

According to you it should go something like this:
Judge: "Mr. Trump do you have anything to say to the evidence against you that we've heard today?"
Trump:"Yes Your Honor, I am innocent until proven guilty."
Judge: "Fair enough. OK Madam Jury Foreman, does the jury have a verdict?"
Jury Foreman: "We do Your Honor"
Judge: "Please read that verdict."
Jury Foreman: "Guilty Your Honor."

And THEN, at this point....BackAgain will switch his line of BULLSHIT to....wait for it......
"NUH-UH!
THE JURY WAS WRONG!
HE'S NOT REALLY GUILTY!"

"But BackAgain....you SAID he's innocent until proven guilty....so now a jury has found him GUILTY....so that's it!"

Back Again: "Nuh-uh, doesn't count.
Wasn't a credible jury."

Good GOD!
It is SO TEDIOUS talking to clueless twits!

At any rate BrokeAgain, you are welcome for the lesson here.
Consider yourself schooled again!

Indictments are proof that papr exists. That ink exists. That words exist. It is also prof that a prosecutor exists and so does a grand jury.

Other than that, however, as I correctly noted (before your ignorant wall o’ words), an indictment (by law and by common sense) constitutes not one atom’s worth of evidence at a trial.

Your ignorance is confirmed.

 

[MagicMike]

Indictments are proof that papr exists. That ink exists. That words exist. It is also prof that a prosecutor exists and so does a grand jury.

Other than that, however, as I correctly noted (before your ignorant wall o’ words), an indictment (by law and by common sense) constitutes not one atom’s worth of evidence at a trial.

Your ignorance is confirmed.

For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members. The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury. All proceedings and statements made before a grand jury are sealed, meaning that only the people in the room have knowledge about who said what about whom. The grand jury is a constitutional requirement for certain types of crimes (meaning it is written in the United States Constitution) so that a group of citizens who do not know the defendant can make an unbiased decision about the evidence before voting to charge an individual with a crime.

Charging

www.justice.gov

Indictments are proof that papr exists. That ink exists. That words exist. It is also prof that a prosecutor exists and so does a grand jury.

Other than that, however, as I correctly noted (before your ignorant wall o’ words), an indictment (by law and by common sense) constitutes not one atom’s worth of evidence at a trial.

Your ignorance is confirmed.

 

[Arlette]

Obviously, Trump's SCOTUS selections have proven to be America's crowning grace, When he wins re-election from an indolent senile has-been, the court and hopefully the country will be saved from bizarrely incogitance .

Trump isn't gonna win reelection

 

[BackAgain]

For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members. The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury. All proceedings and statements made before a grand jury are sealed, meaning that only the people in the room have knowledge about who said what about whom. The grand jury is a constitutional requirement for certain types of crimes (meaning it is written in the United States Constitution) so that a group of citizens who do not know the defendant can make an unbiased decision about the evidence before voting to charge an individual with a crime.

Charging

www.justice.gov

The prosecutor presents evidence to justify a charge, you dim wit. They have to present only that amount of evidence which would lead a majority of the grand jurors to conclude that it is probable that a crime was committed and that the suspect is the person who may have committed it.

Probable is a much lower standard than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” which is required for a conviction. Plus, a unanimous verdict by a trial jury is required which is tougher than just getting a simple majority.

This, a trial jury is instructed kn the law by the judge that an indictment is not evidence at all in a trial.

Your simpleton thought process would boil down to the imbecilic proposition that evidence sufficient for the indictment somehow constitutes proof that the accusation is established. To be accused would amount to being guilty. That’s not how things work.

Hell. The prosecutor isn’t even required to present the same evidence to a trial jury as was provided to the grand jury.