Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[BobTheCoward]

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.

I'ts not clear if you mean that is a different standard than what the prosecutor or police detective should say, or if you think they should be on the same standard.

 

[phiwum]

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.

You know nothing about how many discussions there were or the reaction the memo received.

"Veep" and "West Wing" don't make us experts on what actually was said in a particular campaign. You do know what skepticism is, right?

And again, suppose there were discussions. So what? Nothing happened, whereas Trump lied for years about startling evidence that Obama is not a citizen. The two situations are nowhere near comparable and you appear silly for trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[acbytesla]

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

If you look at their dissent, they were in fact consistent with stare decicis. For 200 years the courts ruled similarly.

 

[phiwum]

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?

The FBI and DOJ refer to suspects as "thugs"? I'll be darned.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The FBI and DOJ refer to suspects as "thugs"? I'll be darned.

Yes

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/media/30pellicano.html

 

[Babbylonian]

I'ts not clear if you mean that is a different standard than what the prosecutor or police detective should say, or if you think they should be on the same standard.

They are on a similar standard. Guilty versus non-guilty is for the courtroom, not a press room. But when it comes right down to it, once a particular crisis has passed (e.g., when law enforcement isn't hunting for potentially dangerous suspects), the President should say nothing further and s/he certainly shouldn't be declaring anyone guilty if for no other reason that s/he might be completely wrong. Have we forgotten Richard Jewell already?

 

[phiwum]

Yes

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/media/30pellicano.html

The Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano was a “very well-paid thug” who used wiretaps and crooked police officers to dig up dirt for his celebrity clients and to make their adversaries suffer, a federal prosecutor told jurors Tuesday.

This is a prosecutor in a trial. At that point, we're not concerned with biasing the pool of potential jurors, because the trial is actually happening.

Try finding a situation in which a recently arrested suspect, not formally charged yet (as far as I know[1]), has been called a "thug" and his guilt plainly presumed in a statement by a DoJ or FBI official.

[1] He has been charged now -- with attempted murder of police officers, but not with the bombing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is a prosecutor in a trial. At that point, we're not concerned with biasing the pool of potential jurors, because the trial is actually happening.

Try finding a situation in which a recently arrested suspect, not formally charged yet (as far as I know), has been called a "thug" and his guilt plainly presumed in a statement by a DoJ or FBI official.

That is pretty specific. Can we relax it to police saying plainly presumed guilty before charges?

 

[Babbylonian]

That is pretty specific. Can we relax it to police saying plainly presumed guilty before charges?

Why?

ETA: This is a serious question, by the way. Is it because finding previous cases where police and prosecutors have improperly influenced (or attempted to influence) a potential jury pool would mean that it's okay to do so?

 

[phiwum]

That is pretty specific. Can we relax it to police saying plainly presumed guilty before charges?

Okay, but even then, Trump called the suspect a "thug". If you can't get similar language from FBI or DoJ, then Trump has already obviously gone too far.

But no matter. Find some quotes that the defendant is clearly guilty from police, FBI or DoJ prior to charges or at least prior to trial. Let's see if it happens often.

ETA: Let's restrict to a situation in which the suspect is still alive and competent to stand trial. Doesn't count if there's never a trial, I'd think.

ETA 2: Obviously, language in the actual indictment doesn't count.

 

[Minoosh]

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

Ideally the soonest a prosecutor would use that language would be in the specific format of prosecutor's opening statements. That's when all the pieces are in place. In between arrest and trial, reporters would follow the investigation and begin in their way litigating the issue.

Cops don't generally say for publication, "We arrested the thug who did it." I'm sure lots of times they've told reporters, "We've got the bastard," but for publication they would be more circumspect. The media would add qualifiers in reflection of their own standards.

With social media, it's different. If Trump wants to say, "We know this despicable thug is guilty," he can. His followers can cheer him on. If an arrest is good enough for Trump, it's good enough for them. I suspect many of them are perfectly fine with "guilty until proven innocent."

 

[Minoosh]

I hope authorities are not torturing him like Trump wants. I think there are better ways to get information.

 

[sunmaster14]

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).

Trump would claim that the bombing in New York was an act of war by an ISIS soldier. Why is he wrong about what constitutes an act of war, but Obama is right?

We do have standards for how we treat U.S. citizens accused of committing crimes in the U.S.

Do you think our standards don't apply to US citizens accused of committing crimes outside the US? Because Obama has killed at least two, on purpose.

 

[Babbylonian]

With social media, it's different. If Trump wants to say, "We know this despicable thug is guilty," he can. His followers can cheer him on. If an arrest is good enough for Trump, it's good enough for them. I suspect many of them are perfectly fine with "guilty until proven innocent."

Besides, he's a [supposed] multi-billionaire. Surely he can afford the settlement if he declares the guilt of someone who turns out to be innocent.

 

[logger]

If you look at their dissent, they were in fact consistent with stare decicis. For 200 years the courts ruled similarly.

The 2nd amendment wasn't an individual right? You're in complete denial.

 

[acbytesla]

The 2nd amendment wasn't an individual right? You're in complete denial.

The second amendment was about the need for a militia. Heller broke new ground.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

Heck no, unless those people are of color. That is the message Trump is sending.

 

[NoahFence]

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

If it were up to the zipper heads that run the Trump campaign, yes to all the above.

(Assuming non whites)

 

[Minoosh]

Trump would claim that the bombing in New York was an act of war by an ISIS soldier.

Has he said it's an act of war by an ISIS soldier? I'd rather not argue about what he would claim until he claims it. Quite possible it's out there.

Do you think our standards don't apply to US citizens accused of committing crimes outside the US? Because Obama has killed at least two, on purpose.

If they are within reach of our judicial system we treat them as defendants in a criminal case. Wars are a whole different deal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why?

ETA: This is a serious question, by the way. Is it because finding previous cases where police and prosecutors have improperly influenced (or attempted to influence) a potential jury pool would mean that it's okay to do so?

Because there are three different arguments here and I have various levels of concern.

First, is Trump's use of the word thug which I strongly object to and have no intention of defending.

Second is the use of thug by prosecutors which my initial response was I bet I could find it. I am only mildly interested in that.

The third one I actually care about. This one Minoosh's concern about a presumption of innocence. I strongly believe the president doesn't need to exercise a presumption of innocence greater than the officers and attorneys below.