Law Does Trump's Presidency mark the end of "Presumption of Innocence"?

[djacobox372]

Give me a break.. the crimes he's been indicted for aren't some mysterious crap they dug up after years of searching.. it's crimes he committed out in the open flagrantly under the presumption that he was above the law.

Any other person would be indicted if they did the same thing. And, no, what Hillary or Joe did isn't even close to the same thing. If trump had cooperated in the same way they did, he wouldn't have been charged.

 

[steveflynn]

I think it's more logical to assume that he's in such legal trouble because he's continuously engaged in criminal activity...........

 

[jefferz]

I don't subscribe to any single political ideology, however, with all of these indictments being thrown about, it got me thinking. Is the average person safe from this process of being continuously investigated and charged with crimes?

I think the reason why Trump has kept going for so long is because he has the resources to fight these charges, but what if you are not an influential billionaire? Is there any way for the average person to defend themselves against the "presumption of guilt" smear campaigns? It seems like the perfect strategy for incumbents in all facets of life to disrupt, bankrupt, and cancel a person they feel threatened by.

Is the US moving to a criminal justice system that is based on being presumed guilty until proven innocent? Should the rest of us commoners be concerned about where this accusation culture is heading?


"Presumption of Innocence"
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.
Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia

"Presumption of Guilt"
A presumption of guilt is any presumption within the criminal justice system that a person is guilty of a crime, for example a presumption that a suspect is guilty unless or until proven to be innocent. Such a presumption may legitimately arise from a rule of law or a procedural rule of the court or other adjudicating body which determines how the facts in the case are to be proved, and may be either rebuttable or irrebuttable. An irrebuttable presumption of fact may not be challenged by the defense, and the presumed fact is taken as having been proved. A rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of proof onto the defense, who must collect and present evidence to prove the suspect's innocence, in order to obtain acquittal.
Presumption of guilt - Wikipedia

With the charges Trump is facing, the average person would be sitting in jail with no bail awaiting trial.

 

[FIMN]

With the charges Trump is facing, the average person would be sitting in jail with no bail awaiting trial.

It certainly is a two tiered justice system - but just the exact opposite of the way that @Super_Nintendo , @cottagecheesefan and @BIKES! Are suggesting.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I don't subscribe to any single political ideology, however, with all of these indictments being thrown about, it got me thinking. Is the average person safe from this process of being continuously investigated and charged with crimes?

I think the reason why Trump has kept going for so long is because he has the resources to fight these charges, but what if you are not an influential billionaire? Is there any way for the average person to defend themselves against the "presumption of guilt" smear campaigns? It seems like the perfect strategy for incumbents in all facets of life to disrupt, bankrupt, and cancel a person they feel threatened by.

Is the US moving to a criminal justice system that is based on being presumed guilty until proven innocent? Should the rest of us commoners be concerned about where this accusation culture is heading?


"Presumption of Innocence"
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.
Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia

"Presumption of Guilt"
A presumption of guilt is any presumption within the criminal justice system that a person is guilty of a crime, for example a presumption that a suspect is guilty unless or until proven to be innocent. Such a presumption may legitimately arise from a rule of law or a procedural rule of the court or other adjudicating body which determines how the facts in the case are to be proved, and may be either rebuttable or irrebuttable. An irrebuttable presumption of fact may not be challenged by the defense, and the presumed fact is taken as having been proved. A rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of proof onto the defense, who must collect and present evidence to prove the suspect's innocence, in order to obtain acquittal.
Presumption of guilt - Wikipedia

two interesting cases are Governor Greitens of MI who had a retired FBI agent and the Soros backed DA who has since resigned in disgrace. Case was based on fake evidence, etc, but the legal fight was too much and resigned from office despite doing nothing wrong.

even worse was VA Governor Bob McDonald, who was a likely presidential candidate. Jack Smith who is going after Trump got him indicted and then convicted, only to have the Supreme Court unanimously overturn the conviction due to political bias and misrepresentation of evidence. Regardless, it ruined his political career and has done nothing since.

Jack smith also connected to the IRS targeting republicans.

As for average citizens, look no further than the 1/6 rioters who are being given sentences way above what they should be, by the judge overseeing Trump’s 1/6 case. Many of them getting 4-5 years for “parading” through the capitol after being left in, in most cases… and the evidence is also being withhold, like with the Shaman guy who was basically escorted through the capitol into the senate chamber.

this judge recused herself from another a trump case due to potential bias, but for some reason won’t this time? Lol OK

so yea, if your a minority and a criminal, likely won’t be charged with anything of you assault someone and released without bail. If you’re a Republican, you’re fucked if you post memes on the internet.

Edit: and let’s not forget the abuse by the FBI and such prior to him even getting elected and their continued spying on him, etc.

 

[Jake the Muss]

In the court of public appeal the “presumption of innocence” has never existed. In the court of the law it still very much exists. Trump is just getting his comeuppance for a life of being a shitty person.

As a civilian or a normal person, there is no presumption of innocence.

If you want a sure "not guilty" occupation, you must be a painter.

Presumption of innocence refers to the State taking certain actions against a defendant before he has been convicted. It does not refer to the public expressing their opinion about whether a defendant is guilty.

So no, the presumption of innocence is not over. Nothing unfair is being done to trump. He's getting every opportunity to address the charges in the proper forum. He's just doing a shit job of it no one except his most desperate of supporters believes him. Not because of any directive from the court, but because we've had almost a decade of listening to him lie his ass off.

If there’s probable cause, you can be investigated and charged. It has nothing to do with presumption of innocence in a courtroom. Trump keeps catching indictments because of all the evidence he committed crimes.

Of course they are, because unlike Trump, the average person doesn't regularly engage in criminal behavior.

Give me a break.. the crimes he's been indicted for aren't some mysterious crap they dug up after years of searching.. it's crimes he committed out in the open flagrantly under the presumption that he was above the law.

Any other person would be indicted if they did the same thing. And, no, what Hillary or Joe did isn't even close to the same thing. If trump had cooperated in the same way they did, he wouldn't have been charged.

I think it's more logical to assume that he's in such legal trouble because he's continuously engaged in criminal activity...........

two interesting cases are Governor Greitens of MI who had a retired FBI agent and the Soros backed DA who has since resigned in disgrace. Case was based on fake evidence, etc, but the legal fight was too much and resigned from office despite doing nothing wrong.

even worse was VA Governor Bob McDonald, who was a likely presidential candidate. Jack Smith who is going after Trump got him indicted and then convicted, only to have the Supreme Court unanimously overturn the conviction due to political bias and misrepresentation of evidence. Regardless, it ruined his political career and has done nothing since.

Jack smith also connected to the IRS targeting republicans.

As for average citizens, look no further than the 1/6 rioters who are being given sentences way above what they should be, by the judge overseeing Trump’s 1/6 case. Many of them getting 4-5 years for “parading” through the capitol after being left in, in most cases… and the evidence is also being withhold, like with the Shaman guy who was basically escorted through the capitol into the senate chamber.

this judge recused herself from another a trump case due to potential bias, but for some reason won’t this time? Lol OK

so yea, if your a minority and a criminal, likely won’t be charged with anything of you assault someone and released without bail. If you’re a Republican, you’re fucked if you post memes on the internet.

I found this interesting explainer video about the "Abuse of Process".



An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as a tort distinct from the intentional tort of malicious prosecution. It is a tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts. In the United States it may be described as a legal process being commenced to gain an unfair litigation advantage.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings. Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution. Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Abuse of process - Wikipedia

 

[sickc0d3r]

People should be glad being rich and powerful doesn’t make you above the law. Instead we get apologists….

Well, the problem is the people they don’t like are not also committing crimes while daring authorities to do something about it. This creates resentment in the chudly heart.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I found this interesting explainer video about the "Abuse of Process".



An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as a tort distinct from the intentional tort of malicious prosecution. It is a tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts. In the United States it may be described as a legal process being commenced to gain an unfair litigation advantage.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings. Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution. Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Abuse of process - Wikipedia

problem is courts stacked with radicals who don’t care, especially the DC courts where they can also pretty much guarantee a jury pool of almost all democrats.

But again, just look at this incoming GA indictment from the radical, soros funded Fulton DA. This is literally the head of the jury, probably all democrats, since in Atlanta, and in a grand jury, the DA gets to present whatever they want with no defense

even with trumps election case in Ga right after the election, it was overseen by Stacy Abrams sister who refused to refuse herself and dismissed the case. No fair investigation or anything. That alone could be used as evidence as to why Trump should be protected by political speech in this 1/6 case.

anyways, these people are freaks, just look at her lol.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I found this interesting explainer video about the "Abuse of Process".



An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as a tort distinct from the intentional tort of malicious prosecution. It is a tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts. In the United States it may be described as a legal process being commenced to gain an unfair litigation advantage.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings. Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution. Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Abuse of process - Wikipedia

Yeah, the prosecution might gain an unfair legal advantage just by letting Trump run his yapper.

Anyway, let’s see if his lawyers make this claim in court.

 

[Poon Goon]

especially the DC courts where they can also pretty much guarantee a jury pool of almost all democrats.

Not surprising that this dumb shit is gaining traction among the morons

 

[FIMN]

problem is courts stacked with radicals who don’t care, especially the DC courts where they can also pretty much guarantee a jury pool of almost all democrats.

But again, just look at this incoming GA indictment from the radical, soros funded Fulton DA. This is literally the head of the jury, probably all democrats, since in Atlanta, and in a grand jury, the DA gets to present whatever they want with no defense

even with trumps election case in Ga right after the election, it was overseen by Stacy Abrams sister who refused to refuse herself and dismissed the case. No fair investigation or anything. That alone could be used as evidence as to why Trump should be protected by political speech in this 1/6 case.

anyways, these people are freaks, just look at her lol.

You're hitting all the expected notes but unfortunately the legal evidence appears to be overwhelming... Soros or otherwise.

 

[Jake the Muss]

problem is courts stacked with radicals who don’t care, especially the DC courts where they can also pretty much guarantee a jury pool of almost all democrats.

But again, just look at this incoming GA indictment from the radical, soros funded Fulton DA. This is literally the head of the jury, probably all democrats, since in Atlanta, and in a grand jury, the DA gets to present whatever they want with no defense

even with trumps election case in Ga right after the election, it was overseen by Stacy Abrams sister who refused to refuse herself and dismissed the case. No fair investigation or anything. That alone could be used as evidence as to why Trump should be protected by political speech in this 1/6 case.

anyways, these people are freaks, just look at her lol.

Yeah, the prosecution might gain an unfair legal advantage just by letting Trump run his yapper.

Anyway, let’s see if his lawyers make this claim in court.

Not surprising that this dumb shit is gaining traction among the morons

You're hitting all the expected notes but unfortunately the legal evidence appears to be overwhelming... Soros or otherwise.

Is this an example of subversion?

 

[FIMN]

Is this an example of subversion?

You haven't seemed to have been able to specify what in the indictment is wrong, nor are you denying Trump committed the crimes he is accused of.

You're free to give it a go but I suspect you won't. Feel free to surprise me.

 

[Poon Goon]

Is this an example of subversion?

So your gimmick is to search YouTube and wiki for ominous terms that don’t really apply to the situation and post them here. Not really fun or funny

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Is this an example of subversion?

I have seen that clip several times, but yes I would call this the product of the long march of the institutions. That is why Harvard is at the heart of this affirmative action case that freaks out the radical left.

they are one of the, if not the leading law schools that produces these radical judges that care more about liberalism than the constitution.

Years from now, Obamas presidency will be known for creating racial division and packing the courts with radical judges that hate America and the constitution.

alan Dershowitz, who is a democrat and civil rights activist and Harvard professor has basically been blacklisted for calling this out, and even has a book called “get trump”. But basically a book on how the justice system has been politicized and trump is simply the person who has brought it to the surface. But it happens all over and you see it in urban areas with radical judges, AGs, DAs, etc

 

[nonoob]

I found this interesting explainer video about the "Abuse of Process". Is this an example of subversion?

This IS an example of subversion.​

YouTube and wiki tries not to show things that apply to the situation.

Fixt.
​

 

[Jake the Muss]

So your gimmick is to search YouTube and wiki for ominous terms that don’t really apply to the situation and post them here. Not really fun or funny

Yes. Here are some more ominous terms:

Barratry (/ˈbærətri/ BARR-ə-tree) is a legal term that, at common law, described a criminal offense committed by people who are overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation, or who bring repeated or persistent acts of litigation for the purposes of profit or harassment.

Barratry (common law) - Wikipedia

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

Vexatious litigation - Wikipedia

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I don't subscribe to any single political ideology, however, with all of these indictments being thrown about, it got me thinking. Is the average person safe from this process of being continuously investigated and charged with crimes?

I think the reason why Trump has kept going for so long is because he has the resources to fight these charges, but what if you are not an influential billionaire? Is there any way for the average person to defend themselves against the "presumption of guilt" smear campaigns? It seems like the perfect strategy for incumbents in all facets of life to disrupt, bankrupt, and cancel a person they feel threatened by.

Is the US moving to a criminal justice system that is based on being presumed guilty until proven innocent? Should the rest of us commoners be concerned about where this accusation culture is heading?


"Presumption of Innocence"
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.
Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia

"Presumption of Guilt"
A presumption of guilt is any presumption within the criminal justice system that a person is guilty of a crime, for example a presumption that a suspect is guilty unless or until proven to be innocent. Such a presumption may legitimately arise from a rule of law or a procedural rule of the court or other adjudicating body which determines how the facts in the case are to be proved, and may be either rebuttable or irrebuttable. An irrebuttable presumption of fact may not be challenged by the defense, and the presumed fact is taken as having been proved. A rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of proof onto the defense, who must collect and present evidence to prove the suspect's innocence, in order to obtain acquittal.
Presumption of guilt - Wikipedia

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time , simple as that really

Trump just happens to be a Life long crook and con man who had no business holding office at any level let alone potus and it's finally catching up with him .

 

[Jake the Muss]

This IS an example of subversion.​

Fixt.
​

Republicans ban books while Democrats ban words.

 

[Konquest]

Everything that Trump has been indicted for has been out in the open and in most cases involved public bragging and boasting, literally daring the DOJ to charge. No one, not even the most fervent Trump supporters/MAGA cultists dispute any of actions that led to the charges, but rather, their argument has been that he should be allowed to get away with it. So spare me the whole "presumption of innocence" crap. This has been "Yeah I did it, what are you going to do about it?" from day 1.