Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[Beelzebuddy]

Longer more insane section.

[IMGw=640]http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/rfstack/000000_51.jpg[/IMGw]

I'm trying to do that thing where you use words to express thoughts or feelings, but it isn't working.

So I'll resort to an image macro.

It is a national disgrace that he even has a shot at the presidency.

 

[acbytesla]

Only because she won't have the house.

But what she will be able to do is appoint Scalia's replacement which will change the second amendment. They will say an individual does not have the right to a firearm. Changing our laws once again through the courts.

Trump of course will not do that.

I doubt that. What it might do is allow more regulations of say assault weapons.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not in any sense.

ETA: And even if I granted that dubious premise, s/he still shouldn't be prejudicing a potential jury pool by talking about who's guilty or not.

Where does it stop? If a junior attorney is about to argue a capital case,, the attorney can call the defendant guilty right? Is the deputy assistant attorney general allowed to call the defendant guilty? The assistant attorney general? The attorney general?

 

[logger]

I doubt that. What it might do is allow more regulations of say assault weapons.

Look how the four libs voted in Heller, that should give you a clue.

 

[acbytesla]

But isn't it okay for the president to say this? As the chief executive, he or she is the head cop and head prosecutor in a sense. those roles argue that a suspect and defendant are guilty. The judicial branch and legislative branch are the ones with the imperative to remain silent.

Not really. Not without a qualifier. Such as "it appears". We captured a "suspect". It's a mistake to use definitive language. It's important to allow the process to play out.

It "appears" as if Trump bribed Florida Attorney General Bondi. Trump is suspected in exchanging a donation and hosting a fundraiser for the dropping of the investigation into Trump University.

It would be a mistake for someone running for office to make such a declarative statement before due process is afforded the defendant.

 

[logger]

I'm trying to do that thing where you use words to express thoughts or feelings, but it isn't working.

So I'll resort to an image macro.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/TwNEoWN.png[/qimg]

It is a national disgrace that he even has a shot at the presidency.

Lol

It's a national disgrace that she isn't locked up!

 

[Fudbucker]

Right. Someone in her campaign suggested a somewhat dirty tactic that she rejected. Therefore, she is "limited" in her ability to call out Trump for pushing an obviously false conspiracy theory for years.

Because the two situations are so darned close to moral equivalence.

Your claim is silly. Moderately less silly than Trump's claim that Clinton started birtherism, but silly nonetheless.

You think that memo happened in a vacuum? You don't think there was serious discussion about portraying Obama as an "other"? This wasn't some campaign flunky who wrote that memo, and you can't be that naive. I give Clinton credit for not carrying it out, but by the same token, I'm not some babe in the woods who doesn't know how high-level campaigns are run. I guarantee you there was serious talk among Clinton and her senior staff members about portraying Obama as unAmerican, and people who read that memo think the same thing I do, which is why she can't hammer him righteously on birtherism.

 

[Shalamar]

It could be people are tired of leftist sticking their necks out for the worst.
People are concerned about what this guy "allegedly" did but leftist are only concerned about us treating him fairly. Which of course is probably why islamist and leftist love each other so much.

Should people in the USA be punished based solely on accusations?
Should the USA eliminate trials?
Should the USA eliminate 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

 

[Babbylonian]

Where does it stop? If a junior attorney is about to argue a capital case,, the attorney can call the defendant guilty right? Is the deputy assistant attorney general allowed to call the defendant guilty? The assistant attorney general? The attorney general?

Do you see a lot of junior attorneys getting in front of TV cameras talking about who and who isn't guilty of crimes they're prosecuting? Even farther up the chain, they tend to talk about having suspects in custody and saying what they plan to charge them with and what they plan to prove in court. Beyond that (and actually, generally, including that), they should shut the **** up. The President of the United States absolutely has no business talking about an ongoing investigation/criminal case beyond the above.

ETA: Heard of a gag order? Judges impose them when one or both sides of a criminal prosecution are found to be attempting to influence the potential jury pool.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you see a lot of junior attorneys getting in front of TV cameras talking about who and who isn't guilty of crimes they're prosecuting? Even farther up the chain, they tend to talk about having suspects in custody and saying what they plan to charge them with and what they plan to prove in court. Beyond that (and actually, generally, including that), they should shut the **** up. The President of the United States absolutely has no business talking about an ongoing investigation/criminal case beyond the above.

We will have to look at how often prosecutors stop using alleged language. Do you think a president should use different terminology (whatever it is) than the FBI and DOJ?

 

[acbytesla]

Look how the four libs voted in Heller, that should give you a clue.

Interesting as that case had overturned "decided" law. A regulation which had been on the books for 35 years. It was Heller that expanded the jurisdiction of the second amendment, not the other way around.

 

[Babbylonian]

We will have to look at how often prosecutors stop using alleged language. Do you think a president should use different terminology (whatever it is) than the FBI and DOJ?

I think that if the FBI and DOJ have a suspect or suspects in custody, the President has nothing to talk about beyond that, and s/he shouldn't be talking about it in anything but the broadest terms. Period. Talking about how a particular suspect should be punished is way out of bounds unless s/he is going to issue a pardon or commute the sentence.

 

[Minoosh]

But isn't it okay for the president to say this? As the chief executive, he or she is the head cop and head prosecutor in a sense. those roles argue that a suspect and defendant are guilty. The judicial branch and legislative branch are the ones with the imperative to remain silent.

Interesting question. These people aren't the president, but that's probably not key - it is just standard law & order bluster. My reaction comes from being in newspapers for many years. We had an informal sort of fairness doctrine. We'd get a comment from a defendant's lawyer or at least prominently say the person had pleaded not guilty. This seemed to change with the Internet and social media when people could answer charges in real time.

I knew instantly that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 but if I were writing about it, even in an editorial, I would have had to hedge it for a while. It was moot after bin Laden praised the mission.

 

[logger]

Should people in the USA be punished based solely on accusations?
Should the USA eliminate trials?
Should the USA eliminate 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

No
No
And No

No one has ever suggested it.

 

[logger]

Interesting as that case had overturned "decided" law. A regulation which had been on the books for 35 years. It was Heller that expanded the jurisdiction of the second amendment, not the other way around.

Look at the dessent. Get a feel for how the four libs thought of the individual right. Then you'll understand where we are.

 

[Shalamar]

No
No
And No

No one has ever suggested it.

You did. Or rather, very heavily implied it.

It could be people are tired of leftist sticking their necks out for the worst.
People are concerned about what this guy "allegedly" did but leftist are only concerned about us treating him fairly. Which of course is probably why islamist and leftist love each other so much.

The alleged bomber is absolutely entitled to the right of due process, and yes, being treated fairly. If you think he doesn't deserve to be treated fairly, and that no one should be 'sticking their necks out for the worst', then it's a call for the removal of some rather fundamental rights and freedoms.

Everyone has the presumption of innocent until proven guilty to to a fair trial in the United States of America. 'Leftists', 'Rightists', 'islamists', and everyone else.

 

[Minoosh]

Obama has people killed who haven't even been indicted, let alone convicted, of crimes. Americans even. Do you think American ideals are wasted on Obama and his people?

That's done under the banner of warfare which is not comparable to the U.S. criminal justice system. There is no presumption of innocence in who we kill at war, so the Constitution does not really address that issue (AFAIK). We do have standards for how we treat U.S. citizens accused of committing crimes in the U.S.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Interesting question. These people aren't the president, but that's probably not key - it is just standard law & order bluster. My reaction comes from being in newspapers for many years. We had an informal sort of fairness doctrine. We'd get a comment from a defendant's lawyer or at least prominently say the person had pleaded not guilty. This seemed to change with the Internet and social media when people could answer charges in real time.

I knew instantly that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 but if I were writing about it, even in an editorial, I would have had to hedge it for a while. It was moot after bin Laden praised the mission.

Maybe you can clarify....what is the most direct comment police and prosecutors can make on a person's guilt?

 

[logger]

You did. Or rather, very heavily implied it.



The alleged bomber is absolutely entitled to the right of due process, and yes, being treated fairly. If you think he doesn't deserve to be treated fairly, and that no one should be 'sticking their necks out for the worst', then it's a call for the removal of some rather fundamental rights and freedoms.

Everyone has the presumption of innocent until proven guilty to to a fair trial in the United States of America. 'Leftists', 'Rightists', 'islamists', and everyone else.

No one said that either, I just happened to mention liberals are the ones who cry first about these things.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No one said that either, I just happened to mention liberals are the ones who cry first about these things.

Because they are better Americans.