if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

[rom826]

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?

[dan]

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..

[Christinme]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

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?

The DOJ has a policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. There is no other person in American society that the DOJ has a policy that they can not be charged with a crime. Even being charged with a crime does not make one automatically guilty as the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Also it is not that people are innocent until proven guilty it is that they are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. I think it would actually be more accurate to say that they are PRESUMED not guilty unless proven guilty since the verdict is not either innocent or guilty but not guilty or guilty ... with the meaning that the guilt was not proven ... that doesn't mean necessarily that the person is innocent, it just means the guilt was not proven.

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.

[Aviyah]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

Does the American Justice system of innocent until proven guilty apply to presidents also?

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.

Does the American Justice system of innocent until proven guilty apply to presidents also?

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.

[journeyman]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

Under American law, people are presumed innocent. Under God's law, we're guilty.

[keck553]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

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.



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.

That 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.

[Aviyah]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

That 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.

Great example .

That 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.

Great example .

[Christinme]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

That 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.

The 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 …

[keck553]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

The 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 …

No. Ken Starr literally said there is substantial evidence Bill Clinton COMMITED A CRIME. The Muller report doesn't even come near that.

The 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 …

No. Ken Starr literally said there is substantial evidence Bill Clinton COMMITED A CRIME. The Muller report doesn't even come near that.

[Aviyah]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

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???

That's what I was saying Must have misinterpreted keck's post since it seemed like he was agreeing. Sitting Presidents cannot be charged for crimes.

[Christinme]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

No. Ken Starr literally said there is substantial evidence Bill Clinton COMMITED A CRIME. The Muller report doesn't even come near that.

I see where things are listed in the starr report about "substantial evidence" of tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice, perjury ... which yes they are crimes ... so I'm not really sure how different they are because the Mueller report also mentions "substantial evidence" of most of these things ... which yes they are crimes ... not sure how they are different ...

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 ...

[Christinme]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

That's what I was saying Must have misinterpreted keck's post since it seemed like he was agreeing. Sitting Presidents cannot be charged for crimes.

That is not what I saw as the point of keck's post ...

[keck553]

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.

[Christinme]

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.

I 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 chose 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 ...

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 ...

[Pbminimum]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

I 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 ...

It would be foolish to impeach a sitting President that the DOJ found no evidence to suggest doing so. There has been claims of collusion since day one, and it didn't pan out. They need to move on because its getting ridiculous. They need to find evidence of laws being broken and prosecute, or they need to stop.