William Barr appoints U.S. attorney to investigate Russia probe origins

a reply to: chr0naut

So what are you saying exactly..

There wasn't enough evidence of collusion, but he's guilty because the evidence wasn't found?
or
He's guilty until its proven he's innocent?

as a fellow kiwi I thought we were a little more logical than this, I'm struggling with your position here..

a reply to: chr0naut

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Trump is POTUS
Trump will be on the 2020 ticket
Trump will run against a socialist
Barr/Durham will uncover any crimes
MSM = Fake News branded for years to come

What a funny turn things have taken since Hillary screams “what does it matter now” about Benghazi.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Cite the statute, then.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: chr0naut

So what are you saying exactly..

There wasn't enough evidence of collusion, but he's guilty because the evidence wasn't found?
or
He's guilty until its proven he's innocent?

as a fellow kiwi I thought we were a little more logical than this, I'm struggling with your position here.

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.

It doesn't fit the definition of collusion, and Trump himself was distanced from it.

Needless to say, no one was going to get convicted of collusion because it isn't a US Federal offense.

So, evidence was found of communications between the Trump campaign staff and Russians. At that time, Trump was denying strenuously those communications, which he knew were happening.

No one got charged with collusion because it isn't a Federal crime (have I said that enough yet for it to gain traction?).

But Trump clearly lied and acted guilty, repeatedly and publicly. He didn't collude (because its BS), he wasn't charged with anything. But he did lie to everyone.

Trump also wasn't the target of the Mueller investigation, for reasons that Mueller explains in the report. Yet Trump's "witch hunt" protestations seem to indicate that he thought that they were going to get something on him.

There were no FISA warrants against Trump or his family.

There were no loud allegations even from the legal and investigative side (that was all the press). There was no legal disruption to prevent Trump from doing his day to day work as President (despite the "how could he be effective when he was being targeted in a witch hunt" BS).

a reply to: chr0naut

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable Cause mate
That means presumed innocent
Sorry your tiny island doesnt have that.

a reply to: chr0naut

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign. 
Nope
Fbi agents and american citizens
Read up its all being exposed
Entrapment is illegal

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign. 
Nope
Fbi agents and american citizens
Read up its all being exposed
Entrapment is illegal

Pitching for building a Trump tower in Moscow. Didn't work out, but the meeting happened.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable Cause mate
That means presumed innocent
Sorry your tiny island doesnt have that.

Probable cause means presumed to have a cause, i.e: the commission of a crime. The opposite of presumed innocence.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nope
Not involved in the beginning of the investigation bra
Your confused and jumbling all the facts and timelines
Sorry the sloppy she will win fbi/cia/doj left a paper trail.
Just tonight it was exposed the fbi was informed the dossier was not verified BEFORE they gave it to a fisa court as such.

Its ovah bra.
You picked the losers to defend.
The bad orange man wins again.

a reply to: chr0naut

You read upside down
Nothing can be searched without probable cause.
Presumed innocent bra

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign. 
Nope
Fbi agents and american citizens
Read up its all being exposed
Entrapment is illegal

Pitching for building a Trump tower in Moscow. Didn't work out, but the meeting happened.

Yeah this one time this one guy talked to a russian....
Lol
Not illegal bra
They weren't trying to steal hillarys election


Lolololo
Throw it all against the wall kiwi surely some of it will stick...


Spoiler alert
None of it stuck bra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Nope
Not involved in the beginning of the investigation bra
Your confused and jumbling all the facts and timelines
Sorry the sloppy she will win fbi/cia/doj left a paper trail.
Just tonight it was exposed the fbi was informed the dossier was not verified BEFORE they gave it to a fisa court as such.

Its ovah bra.
You picked the losers to defend.
The bad orange man wins again.

Ah, the carrot king! I can't argue that.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump is crushing it and has had his hands tied for 2 years. Between Fake News Dossier Dems and McCain’s crap, Trump still winning.

Dems dead in the water.
McCain gone.

I wouldn’t be surprised if McCains fingerprints aren’t on more of this dirty FBI/DOJ stuff. That would be funny.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

You read upside down
Nothing can be searched without probable cause.
Presumed innocent bra

Probable = you are making a presumption. Cause = evidence of criminality.

I.e: a presumption of guilt.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nope
They cant do squat without probable cause
Every one here is presumed innocent bra

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Cite the statute, then.

Well the Us system is based on English common law. That has the tradition of the presumption of innocence, as I would think someone as invested in the US legal system and investigation such as you would know.

Its why you must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminally, because you are otherwise deemed innocent.

And although this was the norm from the founding of our constitution, there have been court cases that exactly laid this out.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

…

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

en.wikipedia.org...

I warned people based on the Kavanaugh debacle that the democrats and others were attacking the concept of the presumption of innocence.

So thank you for feigning ignorance to do just that and proving me right.

a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

Trump is crushing it and has had his hands tied for 2 years. 
That tears up the never trumpers like a 2 day old taco bell burrito.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yup. DJT has a little more bounce in his step. Going to be a fun 15 months.

a reply to: Grambler

He is a foreigner .
He won't understsnd the concept to begin with.
His govt is all sunshine and bubbles.
They provide him with a good life.
What rights?