It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

57% Of Democrats believe Trump is guilty of Treason

page: 5
48
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Uh-huh...guilty of treason, is it? This old chestnut, again...?

Just like he was "guilty" of obstruction??

In all my days, I've never seen such a bunch of sore losers. I thought it was bad after Obama was elected, then re-elected...'pears that I was wrong. **smh**

I'm assuming, probably wrongly, that there's something that gives the slightest appearance of evidentiary evidence??

No? Huh, color me surprised. [/sarc]




posted on May, 10 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scifi2424
Those same 57% scoff at the idea of God. They say there is no proof of God. There is no proof Trump did anything but they "believe, have faith or just know that crimes exist somewhere."

Muller had two years but found nothing.. Democrats sure do have their fairy tales...


Mueller clearly didn't "find nothing".

There were multiple convictions.

There were 10 instances that look like obstruction of justice by Trump alone, but he is immune from indictment by DOJ policy (noted in the report). Also, there is a section that clearly outlines that Trump is not exonerated. That means he hasn't been cleared of the allegations, there is still question as to his guilt.

You should really read the report.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scifi2424
Those same 57% scoff at the idea of God. They say there is no proof of God. There is no proof Trump did anything but they "believe, have faith or just know that crimes exist somewhere."

Muller had two years but found nothing.. Democrats sure do have their fairy tales...


Mueller clearly didn't "find nothing".

There were multiple convictions.

There were 10 instances that look like obstruction of justice by Trump alone, but he is immune from indictment by DOJ policy (noted in the report). Also, there is a section that clearly outlines that Trump is not exonerated. That means he hasn't been cleared of the allegations, there is still question as to his guilt.

You should really read the report.


So, then, since in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law, you agree that Trump is innocent of all charges right now. You stated clearly above, that his guilt is still in question, therefore he is innocent, right?

Admit it....innocent until proven guilty.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scifi2424
Those same 57% scoff at the idea of God. They say there is no proof of God. There is no proof Trump did anything but they "believe, have faith or just know that crimes exist somewhere."

Muller had two years but found nothing.. Democrats sure do have their fairy tales...


Mueller clearly didn't "find nothing".

There were multiple convictions.

There were 10 instances that look like obstruction of justice by Trump alone, but he is immune from indictment by DOJ policy (noted in the report). Also, there is a section that clearly outlines that Trump is not exonerated. That means he hasn't been cleared of the allegations, there is still question as to his guilt.

You should really read the report.


So, then, since in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law, you agree that Trump is innocent of all charges right now. You stated clearly above, that his guilt is still in question, therefore he is innocent, right?

Admit it....innocent until proven guilty.


Clearly a presumption of innocence would prevent investigation in law enforcement bodies.

In many countries, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and is so mentioned in their national foundational documents and Constitutions.

The Constitution of the United States does not cite presumption of innocence explicitly, however it is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established legal precedent of the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes in a US court of law.

So, yes, your country does have presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, but it clearly is not universal in application and does not cover the investigative phase. If it did, police questioning, and warranted search would all be illegal. Not to mention that a presumption of innocence during investigation would also invalidate the right to remain silent, and in that way, not incriminate yourself.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scifi2424
Those same 57% scoff at the idea of God. They say there is no proof of God. There is no proof Trump did anything but they "believe, have faith or just know that crimes exist somewhere."

Muller had two years but found nothing.. Democrats sure do have their fairy tales...


Mueller clearly didn't "find nothing".

There were multiple convictions.

There were 10 instances that look like obstruction of justice by Trump alone, but he is immune from indictment by DOJ policy (noted in the report). Also, there is a section that clearly outlines that Trump is not exonerated. That means he hasn't been cleared of the allegations, there is still question as to his guilt.

You should really read the report.


So, then, since in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law, you agree that Trump is innocent of all charges right now. You stated clearly above, that his guilt is still in question, therefore he is innocent, right?

Admit it....innocent until proven guilty.


Clearly a presumption of innocence would prevent investigation in law enforcement bodies.

In many countries, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and is so mentioned in their national foundational documents and Constitutions.

The Constitution of the United States does not cite presumption of innocence explicitly, however it is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established legal precedent of the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes in a US court of law.

So, yes, your country does have presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, but it clearly is not universal in application and does not cover the investigative phase. If it did, police questioning, and warranted search would all be illegal. Not to mention that a presumption of innocence during investigation would also invalidate the right to remain silent, and in that way, not incriminate yourself.


I hate to be the one to break your heart here but why not at least use the progressive bible and maybe double check that?

Wiki? With the international discussion?

en.wikipedia.org...

"the Burden is on the Prosecutor"

I rest my case , Judge.

edit on 11-5-2019 by Justoneman because: proofreading



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scifi2424
Those same 57% scoff at the idea of God. They say there is no proof of God. There is no proof Trump did anything but they "believe, have faith or just know that crimes exist somewhere."




So, then, since in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law, you agree that Trump is innocent of all charges right now. You stated clearly above, that his guilt is still in question, therefore he is innocent, right?

Admit it....innocent until proven guilty.


Clearly a presumption of innocence would prevent investigation in law enforcement bodies.

In many countries, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and is so mentioned in their national foundational documents and Constitutions.

The Constitution of the United States does not cite presumption of innocence explicitly, however it is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established legal precedent of the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes in a US court of law.

So, yes, your country does have presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, but it clearly is not universal in application and does not cover the investigative phase. If it did, police questioning, and warranted search would all be illegal. Not to mention that a presumption of innocence during investigation would also invalidate the right to remain silent, and in that way, not incriminate yourself.


I hate to be the one to break your heart here but why not at least use the progressive bible and maybe double check that?

Wiki? With the international discussion?

en.wikipedia.org...

"the Burden is on the Prosecutor"

I rest my case , Judge.


... and how is that not something that applies almost exclusively within a court of law?

The 5th amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- This seems to actually not cover a systemic presumption of innocence. It covers right to trial, double jeopardy in capital cases, and that should they be mis-tried (regardless of guilt or innocence), they must be compensated.

The 6th amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

- Still no presumption of innocence here.

The 14th amendment (much longer, so I'll break it down), Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- So all that stuff about legislating against 'anchor babies' and legislating to remove birthright citizenship is anti-constitutional. Who'd have thought it, the President whose oath of office is to primarily protect the constitution, would be the main offender against it. But presumption of innocence? Nada.

Section 2:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

- So women, some criminals, anyone younger than 21 and some Indians have no right to vote. Also, the representation of each state is supposed to be proportional to the number of 'over 21 male' eligible voters. Well there goes the electoral college fixed numbers, they are unconstitutional. Still no presumption of innocence.

Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

- Isn't that a bag of worms & no presumption of innocence.

Section 4:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

- OK. No presumption of innocence, though.

Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

- Does it? What if the efforts of Congress are countered by the judiciary or the executive? Hmm...

However, still nothing in any of that remotely looks like 'presumption of innocence in a criminal trial', let alone as a universally applied right.

Perhaps the assumptions about the rights the United States grants to its citizens, needs reconsideration?

edit on 11/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You posted the words but anyone of us can do that.

You are not posting the fact that our Courts decided a long time ago that those Amendments were properly vetted and mean that the I the individual am allowed to be proven to be guilty of something I did of my own free will against the law. Like hammering phones so the DOD and DOJ couldn't get the data off them.

Presumption of innocence includes not setting people up to commit a crime but fishing in a roadblock is ok. Not setting people up. A setup is against our rights. They tried hard to set up the DJT campaign.

The FBI conspired to set up the Election Campaign of DJT while WILLFULLY ignoring the law concerning Obstruction by HRC when they hammerd the phones and repeatedly lied about the Emails to the FBI and the public.

Clearly, you don't care about that. Shame on you Chr0. Shame indeed!

edit on 12-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: chr0naut

You posted the words but anyone of us can do that.

You are not posting the fact that our Courts decided a long time ago that those Amendments were properly vetted and mean that the I the individual am allowed to be proven to be guilty of something I did of my own free will against the law. Like hammering phones so the DOD and DOJ couldn't get the data off them.

Presumption of innocence includes not setting people up to commit a crime but fishing in a roadblock is ok. Not setting people up. A setup is against our rights. They tried hard to set up the DJT campaign.

The FBI conspired to set up the Election Campaign of DJT while WILLFULLY ignoring the law concerning Obstruction by HRC when they hammerd the phones and repeatedly lied about the Emails to the FBI and the public.

Clearly, you don't care about that. Shame on you Chr0. Shame indeed!


Setting them up would have been creating the situation for them to commit the crimes that they were charged with; campaign financial fraud, taxation fraud, lying to investigators and identity theft. How did they set those up in any of the instances?

The DNC's secure destruction of mobile 'phones is government mandated security procedure and occurred well before the 'phones were subpoenaed. Nor did they obstruct justice. They didn't fire any investigators, they surrendered the server intact to the FBI (and Homeland) and the attempt at file deletion was made by a third party that was unaware of the subpoena. From what I can see, the DNC didn't intentionally do anything that would hamper the investigation. That is why the allegations didn't stick. Repeat them all you want, but they went as free as Trump did and there are probably still some facts to come out in both cases.

If the Mueller investigation had targeted Trump, then he could have been charged and would have to defend himself in court. It didn't happen. There was no intention to charge the President and the reasons were clearly stated in the Mueller report. Wake up and smell the covfefe.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scifi2424
Those same 57% scoff at the idea of God. They say there is no proof of God. There is no proof Trump did anything but they "believe, have faith or just know that crimes exist somewhere."

Muller had two years but found nothing.. Democrats sure do have their fairy tales...


Mueller clearly didn't "find nothing".

There were multiple convictions.

There were 10 instances that look like obstruction of justice by Trump alone, but he is immune from indictment by DOJ policy (noted in the report). Also, there is a section that clearly outlines that Trump is not exonerated. That means he hasn't been cleared of the allegations, there is still question as to his guilt.

You should really read the report.


Wait a minute.. LOL.. The whole premise or foundation of the investigation was brought about by what can only be described as an attempted coup. Without the illegal FISA, there is no Muller. The whole thing was a sham from the beginning.

You people will never give up and never be happy until you start a war... Bunch of traitors..



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


The DNC's secure destruction of mobile 'phones is government mandated security procedure and occurred well before the 'phones were subpoenaed. Nor did they obstruct justice.


Bullsh!t

tell a better lie next time.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scifi2424

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scifi2424
Those same 57% scoff at the idea of God. They say there is no proof of God. There is no proof Trump did anything but they "believe, have faith or just know that crimes exist somewhere."

Muller had two years but found nothing.. Democrats sure do have their fairy tales...


Mueller clearly didn't "find nothing".

There were multiple convictions.

There were 10 instances that look like obstruction of justice by Trump alone, but he is immune from indictment by DOJ policy (noted in the report). Also, there is a section that clearly outlines that Trump is not exonerated. That means he hasn't been cleared of the allegations, there is still question as to his guilt.

You should really read the report.


Wait a minute.. LOL.. The whole premise or foundation of the investigation was brought about by what can only be described as an attempted coup. Without the illegal FISA, there is no Muller. The whole thing was a sham from the beginning.

You people will never give up and never be happy until you start a war... Bunch of traitors..


The Mueller report does not hang off just a single FISA ruling, or even multiple ones. Or off a single allegation. It is the result of multiple agencies, investigations, reports and intelligence (some of which came from the Republican party who were concerned with Trump's stance on the Ukraine very early on in the campaign).



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

I'll just post this here:

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

At the time I posted this link, there were 735 DOJ Alumni who have put their signatures to this petition.


I am usually good at finding the clue in things like this, but I honestly can't find the link between what the OP is about and your post. It looks like some insanely weak attempt to point at Trump and say "see, orange man BAD!", but I'd like to think you are a little smarter than that. Throw me a bone. Explain the link.



If there was obstruction, then Trump was acting guiltily about the allegations under investigation - of conspiring with an enemy state, granting them control over the outcomes of the processes of government of the US.


You know, from my perspective he was acting pissed off. What exactly is the criteria for "acting guiltily"?


They do stupid stuff like trying to stop investigations that will expose their guilt and incriminate them.


Oh, I get it now thanks. By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? Just askin'


Nah, I can't stop.

I never started.



By the way, feel free to investigate by speaking to my wife and children. I am confident of my innocence of the accusation.

See how that works.

How did Trump respond?


Mueller never said that he didnt find you guilty of beating your wife and kids though. If he could have cleared you of that he would have said so.....

Lol

You people!



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

57 eh ???

Did you read how a distant relative of the president Invented and labelled Heinz 57 ?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Only 57 Percent ? FAKE NEWS !...........)



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut


The DNC's secure destruction of mobile 'phones is government mandated security procedure and occurred well before the 'phones were subpoenaed. Nor did they obstruct justice.


Bullsh!t

tell a better lie next time.


The linked article gets the time frames wrong and has a lot of "possibly", "perhaps", "may have" and people "suggesting", "might have", "unidentified", "believed", "it seems fair to conclude", etc.

The article is speculative.

It also fails to explain how Clinton failed to hand over the e-mails yet the FBI said it recovered 17,448 unique and work related e-mail of which 30 had references to Benghazi. Where did they recover them from and how unless they had access to the server, compliant to the subpoenas.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

I'll just post this here:

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

At the time I posted this link, there were 735 DOJ Alumni who have put their signatures to this petition.


I am usually good at finding the clue in things like this, but I honestly can't find the link between what the OP is about and your post. It looks like some insanely weak attempt to point at Trump and say "see, orange man BAD!", but I'd like to think you are a little smarter than that. Throw me a bone. Explain the link.



If there was obstruction, then Trump was acting guiltily about the allegations under investigation - of conspiring with an enemy state, granting them control over the outcomes of the processes of government of the US.


You know, from my perspective he was acting pissed off. What exactly is the criteria for "acting guiltily"?


They do stupid stuff like trying to stop investigations that will expose their guilt and incriminate them.


Oh, I get it now thanks. By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? Just askin'


Nah, I can't stop.

I never started.



By the way, feel free to investigate by speaking to my wife and children. I am confident of my innocence of the accusation.

See how that works.

How did Trump respond?


Mueller never said that he didnt find you guilty of beating your wife and kids though. If he could have cleared you of that he would have said so.....

Lol

You people!


But he didn't say anything about me, which is the same as saying I am totally exonerated and innocent.

No COMBOBULATION, no OBSTETRICS !!!

... and, I'm an individual not some collective.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join