isn't that person automatically exonerated according to American law, where people are innocent until proven guilty? Does the American Justice system of innocent until proven guilty apply to presidents also?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Collapse
X
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Yup and yup. But, you won't be able to tell that this is a tenet of the US, because the persons accusing the president are not, technically, Americans, IMO. It's not that they don't have origins here, it's just that they don't think like one expects an American to think. or they are making an exception due to their bias, and perhaps one would even say, hate..JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by rom826 View Postisn't that person automatically exonerated according to American law, where people are innocent until proven guilty? Does the American Justice system of innocent until proven guilty apply to presidents also?
The Mueller report in the first part said that there was not sufficient evidence of conspiracy to charge the President or any others like his son with the crime. That doesn't mean there was no evidence or that they were innocent ... however yes under American law they would be presumed "innocent" ... also he noted that deleted texts and lies hindered their ability to investigate.
Now Mueller could have said the same thing concerning obstruction of justice ... which he could have said that if that were the case, since he said it in the first part. The report didn't say there was insufficient evidence to indict the president on obstruction as it did in the first part concerning conspiracy.***Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
For You are the God of my salvation;
On You I wait all the day.
Psalms 25:5***
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by rom826 View PostDoes the American Justice system of innocent until proven guilty apply to presidents also?
This should scare people, but it doesn't, because apparently the only thing the world cares about is whether you like or dislike Trump and how much.
Originally posted by rom826 View PostDoes the American Justice system of innocent until proven guilty apply to presidents also?
This should scare people, but it doesn't, because apparently the only thing the world cares about is whether you like or dislike Trump and how much.我们有这盼望,就像灵魂的锚,又稳当又坚固,通过幔子直进到里面。
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and reliable...
(Hebrews 6:19 CNV / NASB)
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by Aviyah View PostActually no. If you read/listened to the special counsel, one of the key issues they found is that sitting Presidents cannot be indicted. So effectively the President is always presumed innocent regardless of proof. The only way a person in the office of Presidency can be indicted for a crime (literally any crime) is if he is removed from office - which can only be done through Congress, not a courtroom.
This should scare people, but it doesn't, because apparently the only thing the world cares about is whether you like or dislike Trump and how much.
Actually no. If you read/listened to the special counsel, one of the key issues they found is that sitting Presidents cannot be indicted. So effectively the President is always presumed innocent regardless of proof. The only way a person in the office of Presidency can be indicted for a crime (literally any crime) is if he is removed from office - which can only be done through Congress, not a courtroom.
This should scare people, but it doesn't, because apparently the only thing the world cares about is whether you like or dislike Trump and how much.Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by keck553 View PostThat didn't seem to stop Ken Starr from concluding Bill Clinton committed a crime. No indictment, but still the special council concluded Clinton commited a crime.
Originally posted by keck553 View PostThat didn't seem to stop Ken Starr from concluding Bill Clinton committed a crime. No indictment, but still the special council concluded Clinton commited a crime.我们有这盼望,就像灵魂的锚,又稳当又坚固,通过幔子直进到里面。
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and reliable...
(Hebrews 6:19 CNV / NASB)
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by keck553 View PostThat didn't seem to stop Ken Starr from concluding Bill Clinton committed a crime. No indictment, but still the special council concluded Clinton commited a crime.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution
Ken Starr concluded with Bill Clinton that there was "substantial evidence" for Clinton to be impeached BEFORE THAT in 1998 … so why didn't Ken Starr indict Clinton since he could do it??? And Mueller writes numerous times about the "substantial evidence" they found concerning Trump's behavior that pointed to obstruction of justice activity … notice that … same phrase in both reports "substantial evidence" ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton
And just to make it clear … I think the both of them are/were not someone I could support …***Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
For You are the God of my salvation;
On You I wait all the day.
Psalms 25:5***
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by Christinme View PostThe DOJ rule against indicting a sitting President happened … in October 16, 2000 …
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution
Ken Starr concluded with Bill Clinton that there was "substantial evidence" for Clinton to be impeached BEFORE THAT in 1998 … so why didn't Ken Starr indict Clinton since he could do it??? And Mueller writes numerous times about the "substantial evidence" they found concerning Trump's behavior that pointed to obstruction of justice activity … notice that … same phrase in both reports "substantial evidence" ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton
And just to make it clear … I think the both of them are/were not someone I could support …
Originally posted by Christinme View PostThe DOJ rule against indicting a sitting President happened … in October 16, 2000 …
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution
Ken Starr concluded with Bill Clinton that there was "substantial evidence" for Clinton to be impeached BEFORE THAT in 1998 … so why didn't Ken Starr indict Clinton since he could do it??? And Mueller writes numerous times about the "substantial evidence" they found concerning Trump's behavior that pointed to obstruction of justice activity … notice that … same phrase in both reports "substantial evidence" ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton
And just to make it clear … I think the both of them are/were not someone I could support …Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by Christinme View PostKen Starr concluded with Bill Clinton that there was "substantial evidence" for Clinton to be impeached BEFORE THAT in 1998 … so why didn't Ken Starr indict Clinton since he could do it???Must have misinterpreted keck's post since it seemed like he was agreeing. Sitting Presidents cannot be charged for crimes.
我们有这盼望,就像灵魂的锚,又稳当又坚固,通过幔子直进到里面。
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and reliable...
(Hebrews 6:19 CNV / NASB)
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by keck553 View PostNo. Ken Starr literally said there is substantial evidence Bill Clinton COMMITED A CRIME. The Muller report doesn't even come near that.
And glad you now say that Ken star said "there is substantial evidence Bill Clinton COMMITTED A CRIME" because at first you said that the report "concluded that Bill Clinton COMMITTED A CRIME" ... you see the difference there ... I hope so ...***Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
For You are the God of my salvation;
On You I wait all the day.
Psalms 25:5***
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by Aviyah View PostThat's what I was sayingMust have misinterpreted keck's post since it seemed like he was agreeing. Sitting Presidents cannot be charged for crimes.
***Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
For You are the God of my salvation;
On You I wait all the day.
Psalms 25:5***
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Doesn't matter. The report was for DOJ eyes only and DOJ cleared Trump. DOJ did NOT clear Clinton.
End of story.Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by keck553 View PostDoesn't matter. The report was for DOJ eyes only and DOJ cleared Trump. DOJ did NOT clear Clinton.
End of story.
and Barr believes the President has the right to remove anyone in the executive branch for any reason the President chooses to ... and that the DOJ is always subservient to the wishes of the President ... and not only that it seems Barr also holds to that the DOJ can chose not to and actually should not indict anyone of the executive branch PERIOD ...***Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
For You are the God of my salvation;
On You I wait all the day.
Psalms 25:5***
Comment
-
Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,
Originally posted by Christinme View PostI love your it doesn't matter and end of story ... DOJ decided to release the Mueller report and Barr said there wasn't enough evidence to indict (his opinion ... not the opinion of the report ... and not any DOJ ruling since the DOJ CANNOT indict a sitting President) ... that doesn't mean that Congress cannot choice to impeach ... or that the DOJ can not chose to indict Trump after he leaves office ... and the DOJ did not clear Trump ... and the DOJ did not conclude that Clinton committed a crime ...
Comment
Comment