What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426290#Comment_120426290

This is the big problem DeSantis has.

Is he doesn't somehow save Trump he'll probably be seen as a Soros backed plant to betray DonnyDon by the Trump base who wont vote for him.

everlast75

Confirmation of the date and time folks

https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/status/1641912342836310016?s=20

What he said..

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120425960#Comment_120425960

Sounds like you want to reform the bail system accordingly, particularly for non-violent crimes where minorities are most impacted.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120425960#Comment_120425960

That's hilarious. So are you trying to tell me that I didn't grow up hearing people say that? That I haven't said it myself? She didn't say that people have to prove their innocence at trial. She said everyone has a right to a trial to prove their innocence. The idea has been a common one in the US for about as long as the country has existed. If you have been publicly accused of a crime, you have the right to a trial to exonerate you. If the charges are dropped they can just be filed again later. However if you are found not guilty in court that's it. You can't be tried again, even if new evidence is found. Freedom from double jeopardy is one of the cornerstones of the US justice system.

Are far right mouthpieces doing their best to pretend that she meant something different? Sure, that's what they always do. They don't care about facts or the truth. All they care about is spin.

Quin_Dub

Something that has gone under the radar in recent days is the revelation from a Reagan crony that he helped Reagan commit treason in order to win his Election against Carter

He admitted to being involved in communications with Iran to get agreement that they would keep Americans in captivity until after the Election to help Reagan win.

Apparently the guy felt that Carter should know the truth before he dies which is why he has come forward now

Along with all the other horrible stuff that Reagan did, we can now add Treason.

And this is the guy the Republicans think is the greatest President ever??

No wonder they seem ok with Trump - As long as they win, anything is ok when them.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426668#Comment_120426668

The Republican party has been an absolute cesspool since Regan's time. It's only gotten worse over the decades.

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426668#Comment_120426668

So trump didn't just still Reagan's "make America great again" slogan then...

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426838#Comment_120426838

No, he's used quite a few things from Reagans playbook

He's used the Dog Whistle rally location trick recently in Waco.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426472#Comment_120426472

I have never encountered the particular turn of phrase Pelosi used. Never.

I say that as someone with a freshly minted law degree and 43yrs life experience behind me along with plenty of professional experience prior to that law degree in regulatory & compliance fields rather criminal.

My posts on this thread and elsewhere make clear my thoughts on Trump and the GOP.

That said, the notion that one needs a trial to prove their innocence is incredibly dangerous.

The golden rule in any criminal legal system is the presumption of innocence. That one is wholly innocent of any allegation until it is proven to the contrary by the prosecution.

There is and should be zero need for a person to prove their innocence at trial. I mean if a person could prove their innocence, that would require infallible alibi or exculpatory evidence existed. That would be given to the prosecution prior to any indictment.

Imagine what would happen the reputation of a prosecutor and by extension the courts, if a prosecution was allowed to proceed in the face of exculpatory evidence?

Pelosi mangled her words, fair enough. Don't follow that by allowing her mangled words credence as being correct.

There is not and nor should there ever be a need for one to "prove their innocence".

It is a simple truth that any accused before a court enjoys the presumption of innocence and that their guilt, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427351#Comment_120427351

I have no idea where you grew up. I grew up in the US, in various places from coast to coast. Everywhere I lived in the US in the 50 years I lived there I've heard people express that concept, from Washington DC to California, and numerous points in between. I'll certainly admit that I don't recall hearing it since I moved to Ireland. I honestly don't know if the Irish legal system includes protection against double jeopardy.

Proving innocence via a trial has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal presumption of innocence in court. They are entirely separate things. Presumption of innocence is a legal concept, whereas proving innocence via a trial is about public perception.

I certainly agree that the legal presumption of innocence is vitally important, and that legal systems that don't include that are problematic at best. However proving innocence at a trial has nothing to do with that. It is the idea that a person who has been publicly accused of a crime, especially by government authorities, has a right to a trial to exonerate them. A right to have their accuser either prove their guilt in court or withdraw their accusation as publicly as they made it in the first place. Some people prefer to force a trial even if the government is willing to withdraw their accusation due to the concept in the US of double jeopardy. If you are tried for a crime and acquitted then you cannot be tried for that same crime again later.

Trump has been publicly accused of crimes. He has now been indicted for some of them. Pelosi's tweet was pointing out that at this point if he is as innocent as he claims the trial will prove that, and there isn't any need for him to exhort his followers to violence again.

realdanbreen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120425548#Comment_120425548

Quite possible. Isn't it strange though that pretty much all the women that he has had relationships with have either been gold diggers or porn stars!

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427678#Comment_120427678

Or both

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427675#Comment_120427675

What matters is that Pelosi saying anything is very triggering for a certain cohort of people.

realdanbreen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427734#Comment_120427734

Well those who believe that the two most important things in their lives are their guns and their Bible are probably easily triggered, if not stone mad!

Muahahaha

That Dominion trial is coming a lot sooner that Id thought, jury selection is on April 14th then the trial begins on April 17th and is expected to last six weeks. Also Dominion got 6,500 pages of internal Fox emails during the discovery process. In them Rupert Murdoch states that the election fraud line carried by Trump is "really crazy stuff". Then the day after the Jan 6th insurrection the penny finally drops for Murdoch and he realises his network riled up the Trump base so much with the stolen election stuff that he emailed "Is it unarguable that high-profile Fox voices fed the story that the election was stolen and that January 6th an important chance to have the result overturned’? Maybe Sean and Laura went too far. All very well for Sean to tell you he was in despair about Trump, but what did he tell his viewers?” and he later pondered with an executive if Hannity and Ingraham had "gone too far". Its like Rupert woke up on January 7th to see the Capitol building absolutely wrecked and only then he thought to himself 'oh bollox, what have we done'.

I think given these emails we will be seeing Rupert as a witness as he was fully involved behind the scenes in the direct aftermath of the 2020 election, even discussing when to call Pennsylvania for Biden. On Trumps outburst at Fox calling Arizona for Biden Murdoch said in an email "Fcuk him" even though Fox went on to sack the election analyst responsible for the Arizona call. After the Arizona call Fox executives were getting so much heat from MAGAs that they were panicking one said it was an existential threat to the Fox brand and if they didnt appease their audience quickly the company would suffer greatly. It was at that point they latched on to the Dominion story put out by Guiliani & Powell in an effort to rescue Trump supporters from switching off.

It should be a very interesting trial. With 6,500 pages of internal Fox emails about to get unredacted we are going to see the internal workings of the Fox news network for the first time ever and the lengths they were willing to go to push Trumps base into idea of a stolen election which eventually led to them ransacking the Capitol.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427675#Comment_120427675

"Proving innocence via a trial has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal presumption of innocence in court. They are entirely separate things. Presumption of innocence is a legal concept, whereas proving innocence via a trial is about public perception."

This is a dangerous fiction.

In being brought before a court, every accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. Further, being found "not guilty" is an affirmation of that innocence by a court in every Common law system bar Scotland where a "not proven" as an acquittal declaration can be issued.

What courts in US offer "innocent" as a verdict alternative to "not guilty"?

By your logic, an accused person could once a case is lain against them initiate an action in the criminal court with the Prosecutor as respondent and seek the criminal court to declare them innocent.

There is no such action possible so far as I am aware but I'll happily defer to an example.

To be clear, where a court returns a "not guilty" verdict that in and of itself is a vindication of an accused's innocence.

There is no further verdict or declaration of innocence to be gained in criminal court.

"Trump has been publicly accused of crimes. He has now been indicted for some of them. Pelosi's tweet was pointing out that at this point if he is as innocent as he claims the trial will prove that, and there isn't any need for him to exhort his followers to violence again."

Yes I agree that this is what Pelosi's thrust was. Yet her phrasing was poor.

The trial doesn't need to nor should even be implied to mean that Trump needs to prove his innocence.

He doesn't, he enjoys that presumption and as such unless found "Guilty" he is wholly innocent unless and until proven otherwise.

Pelosi's tweet frames the indictment as Trump needing to prove he is innocent.

Now I do believe he has criminal liability for a whole host of crimes.

In none of those likely indictments will Trump need to prove his innocence, nor will any court (Outside of Louisiana, and that's as I'm not familiar with Hybrid Law criminal declaration) issue a verdict of innocent.

TLDR: I agree with you, Trump needs to face the courts. I disagree with Pelosi's framing of any criminal action in terms of a need to prove innocence. Legally, he is until proven guilty.

A not guilty verdict is an affirmation of that innocence.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427854#Comment_120427854

You don't seem to actually be reading what I'm writing. I stated that the idea of proving one's innocence via trial is explicitly NOT meant as legal terminology, but is specifically referring to public opinion. And in response you go on about how "innocent" isn't a verdict given in court. I never claimed that it was. I was never talking about verdicts at all. As I stated before presumption of innocence is a legal concept. The idea of proving you are innocent via a trial is about public perception. It isn't a legal argument.

Pelosi didn't frame any criminal action in terms of a need to prove innocence. She pointed out that if he is innocent a trial will prove that to the public so there shouldn't be any need for his to try and get his followers to riot. I get that you aren't familiar with that particular turn of phrase and so you don't like it. But it is VERY common in the US, despite what the Trump followers are pretending at the moment. It is just a shorter way of saying "Going to trial and being found not guilty will prove to the public at large that you are innocent of the charges that were leveled against you". And with Twitter character count is important.

looksee

To be clear, where a court returns a "not guilty" verdict that in and of itself is a vindication of an accused's innocence.

You have just proved the point, how do you get a not guilty verdict without a trial?

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427964#Comment_120427964

What point do you think I'm making?

Leroy42

Really, Pelosi is the problem here?

Trump has called for violence,posted a pic of him with a baseball bat and the AG. GOP are calling the AG Soros backed.

But Pelosi use of a phrase is the problem?

y0ssar1an22

what did trump (allegedly) do?

i know he was indicted for paying hush money to stormy daniels.

are they saying he raped her, shagged her, something else?

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426472#Comment_120426472

Far Right mouthpieces, please

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120427933#Comment_120427933

Pelosi's 2nd sentence in the tweet, that phrase you have said is very common, fair enough.

No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.

That is the sentence that Trumper's are latching on to. It implies that Trump must prove his innocence. That without exculpation, that the charges listed in the indictment are all fait accompli.

They aren't, Pelosi's words are being twisted to present the NY indictment as being a furtherance of a political hit job on Trump and that the verdict is already in.

Now I do note that you say that particular phrase is common parlance in US but not here. It's astonishing how rare it is online in the form Pelosi used. A form that places the burden of proof upon the accused, versus the far more common formula of,

every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428054#Comment_120428054

Oh 100% agree with you.

Trump is the nutter and bad actor.

The issue with Pelosi's phrasing is the fuel it is already giving the far right and Trumper's in claiming the NY fix is in 😉

briany

@banie01

The issue with Pelosi's phrasing is the fuel it is already giving the far right and Trumper's in claiming the NY fix is in 😉

The fire will burn either way, independently of Pelosi's comments. The only difference is that Pelosi may want to beef up her security detail for at least the next 18 months.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428113#Comment_120428113

I'd hope after her husband's close call, that she is being well protected at this stage?

No doubt some of her Trumper opponents could easily believe that despite no longer being speaker, that she is the one orchestrating the accountability he must face.

Like she is still somehow speaker, Trump is still POTUS and this will all end for them in '24 when shouts fooled ye 😉

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428067#Comment_120428067

Something else - they both admit to consensual sex while Melania was home with baby Barron in 2006. TFG picked her up at a golf tournament, shagged her, promised her a gig on Celebrity apprentice. The latter never happened. Fast forwarding a bit, Daniels tried to sell her story twice, first in 2011 to "InTouch" which, when it reached out to Trump was threatened by Trump attorney Michael Cohen. Again in 2016 when TFG's the nominee, to National Enquirer. Around the same time, other squeeze Karen McDougal is selling her "I had an affair with TFG and all I got was crabs" or some such story to the Enquirer, who paid her off but never published her story. When the Pussygate tape breaks, Daniels pops up again at the Enquirer, gets a deal but doesn't get paid until sometime later, when Michael Cohen directly paid her off while waiting on money from TFG. This eventually leads to jail time for Cohen, who got his money, somehow, from the Trump campaign

TFG is accused of using campaign funds to pay off Cohen and lying left and right about it.

For a pro-Trump timeline, see below. There's lots of them out there:

https://nypost.com/article/trump-stormy-daniels-timeline-hush-money-to-possible-indictment/

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428054#Comment_120428054

For Trump's insurrectionists and other ...fans, Pelosi BREATHING is a trigger. Remember those "tourists" yelling "Where's Nancy".... although I'm sure someone will say "they were looking for a tour guide called nancy".

Always remember: There are people here who believe that video even the GOP don't believe (obviously the GQP believe it)

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428093#Comment_120428093

The thing is the two quotes you mention don't have anything to do with each other. They aren't different versions of the same thing. The idea that someone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct that talks about how how the justice system should work. On the other hand the idea that everyone should have the right of going to trial when they have been accused of a crime so that their innocence can be proven in court is about public perception of someone who has been publicly accused of a crime.

Yes, someone should always be assumed to be innocent until it has been proven that they are guilty. However public perception generally doesn't work that way. And pretending that it does just because that is how the justice system is designed in naive. Another way it is phrased is that everyone deserves their day in court. Which means exactly the same thing.

And no, her tweet doesn't imply that the charges are all fait accompli. Quite the opposite. If he isn't innocent then a trial is unlikely to prove that he is. She is well aware that a lot of people assume that he is guilty. I certainly do. So she offered up that the trial would be his opportunity to prove us wrong. And more importantly hoped that he wouldn't incite his followers to riot again. You know, since the last time he did that she had armed men running around inside her place of work screaming about how they wanted to find and kill her.

I saw the tweet before I ever saw any of the far right types trying to twist its meaning. I thought she was being exceptionally polite to a man that has never been anything but vile to her. It wouldn't ever have occurred to me that telling someone that everyone has the right to a trial to prove their innocence could ever be misinterpreted as saying that he was presumed guilty and would have to prove otherwise in court. To me that would be like hearing someone say "Have a nice trip" to someone going on holiday, and that being interpreted as them hoping that the person will trip over something and injure themselves. It just doesn't make any sense.

It makes much more sense to accept that she was just saying that if he is innocent the trial will prove it to everyone. Rather than assuming that somehow she doesn't understand how the burden of proof works in the justice system of the US. She's been a member of the House of Representatives since 1987. She isn't a lawyer, but she has been around the law for a very long time.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428128#Comment_120428128

Fun fact. The guy that attacked Pelosi's husband is Canadian.