• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Judge sides against Trump his tax returns

Shad

Veteran Member
It's a principle in criminal proceedings. Do you think that an internet argument is a criminal proceeding?

It is principle of justice itself.

Do you think anyone here is suggesting that Trump should be punished without a fair trial?

When people take the position that he must prove his innocence by doing X they do not care about a trial. They already determined guilt beforehand.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It is principle of justice itself.
No, it really isn't. There's no presumption of innocence in taking a victim's claims seriously or in arresting an accused person. The presumption of innocence factors only into specific parts of the process.


When people take the position that he must prove his innocence by doing X they do not care about a trial. They already determined guilt beforehand.
There's not necessarily anything wrong with a person weighing the evidence for themselves and deciding someone is guilty.

The threshold varies depending on the consequence:

- criminal punishment? We need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- civil judgement? We only need a preponderance of the evidence.
- bail or pre-trial detention? The threshold is much lower.
- me thinking badly of someone? The threshold is entirely up to me.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Do you think "he is obviously guilty" means "he should be denied a fair trial?"
No, but you don´t know he is guilty, till convicted.

It is one thing to watch a guy commit a murder, and say he is guilty, it is another to take a number of circumstances that require interpretation, roll it around in political spin, then voice an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn´t make an opinion fact.

A trial is to determine the truth, not rubber stamp opinions, which regardless of pro or con, are tainted by politics.

I don know if he committed crimes, though some things are suspect.

I will wait till as trial, if there ever is one.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
No, but you don´t know he is guilty, till convicted.
You don't know he's guilty until you look at the facts. That might happen in the context of a trial; it might happen in a different context.

It would be ridiculous to say that the facts of someone's guilt or innocence can only be examined in a trial or that trials are foolproof in determining guilt or innocence.

It is one thing to watch a guy commit a murder, and say he is guilty, it is another to take a number of circumstances that require interpretation, roll it around in political spin, then voice an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn´t make an opinion fact.
If you think that a person can't have concluded that Trump is guilty of a number of crimes without "political spin," then I suggest you reflect on the spin that's affecting your own viewpoint.

A trial is to determine the truth, not rubber stamp opinions, which regardless of pro or con, are tainted by politics.
No, a trial is to determine, within the bounds of established procedure, whether a crime has been committed. There's no rule that says I'm only allowed to disapprove of someone's behaviour if it's criminal, and there's no rule that says I have to limit my opinion of a person to only things that were admissible in court.

I don know if he committed crimes, though some things are suspect.

I will wait till as trial, if there ever is one.
Seems a strange position from someone who claims to be a cop... seeing how being a police officer involves detaining people - outright denying their freedom - before their guilt has been established in court.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
No, it really isn't. There's no presumption of innocence in taking a victim's claims seriously or in arresting an accused person. The presumption of innocence factors only into specific parts of the process.



There's not necessarily anything wrong with a person weighing the evidence for themselves and deciding someone is guilty.

The threshold varies depending on the consequence:

- criminal punishment? We need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- civil judgement? We only need a preponderance of the evidence.
- bail or pre-trial detention? The threshold is much lower.
- me thinking badly of someone? The threshold is entirely up to me.
There is everything wrong with a person reading the paper or watching the news and deciding upon guilt.

Evidence isn´t what we decide it is. There are very specific rules of evidence in legal proceedings for a reason. To ensure the truth. To protect the accused from a kangaroo court.

You read that someone overheard Trump say he needed to pick up his check from Russia. Bingo ! there it is, the holy grail ! You don´t know that this from a chain of six people telling the story, and there is uncertainty as to who originally said it.

So, you thinking badly of someone becomes the standard, because you are not applying the rules that determines what evidence is, your evidence is anything you choose to believe.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't assume guilt, but I do have to ask if Trump is totally innocent of any wrongdoing, then why is it that he's trying to "stonewall" the investigations? If I'm innocent, I want as much information to come out as possible to prove I'm innocent. OTOH, if I'm in reality guilty, then I would want to stop investigations.

So, which course is Trump & Co taking? I don't think it takes a ph.d. to figure this out.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Sigh, probable cause and criminal conviction are not the same . All that is required for pre trial detention is probable cause.

You don't know he's guilty until you look at the facts. That might happen in the context of a trial; it might happen in a different context.

It would be ridiculous to say that the facts of someone's guilt or innocence can only be examined in a trial or that trials are foolproof in determining guilt or innocence.


If you think that a person can't have concluded that Trump is guilty of a number of crimes without "political spin," then I suggest you reflect on the spin that's affecting your own viewpoint.


No, a trial is to determine, within the bounds of established procedure, whether a crime has been committed. There's no rule that says I'm only allowed to disapprove of someone's behaviour if it's criminal, and there's no rule that says I have to limit my opinion of a person to only things that were admissible in court.


Seems a strange position from someone who claims to be a cop... seeing how being a police officer involves detaining people - outright denying their freedom - before their guilt has been established in court.
Sigh, probable cause and conviction are not the same. Pre trial detention is based upon probable cause.

A criminal trial is to establish the truth. A trial will not occur if a crime has not been proven to have occurred, and that there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime.

Pre trial hearings are for the purpose of establishing a crime and determining the possibility the suspect committed it.

What makes a fact, a fact ? What is the standard to say A) is a fact, B) is not ? Who decides what is factual, and what is not ?

No, your opinion of someone can be based upon their eye color or skin color, that is your right, but your opinion is worthless for determining truth, that is the whole point.

Your opinion objectively means absolutely nothing, it is based upon wrong, or unproven garbage.

Prove it by the standards of proof, or admit it is just your opinion based upon what you have read or heard.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I don't assume guilt, but I do have to ask if Trump is totally innocent of any wrongdoing, then why is it that he's trying to "stonewall" the investigations? If I'm innocent, I want as much information to come out as possible to prove I'm innocent. OTOH, if I'm in reality guilty, then I would want to stop investigations.

So, which course is Trump & Co taking? I don't think it takes a ph.d. to figure this out.
This is a power struggle between two co equal branches of government. If you recall, he never once claimed executive privilege ( his right) during Muellers 2 1/2 years, and gave Mueller everything he asked for. That netted him more investigations.

Must the executive branch kowtow to the legislative branch in everything it wants ? Why co operate in an alleged impeachment inquiry when one has not been voted on by the peoples representatives ?

Why co operate in an investigation that is totally non transparent, held in secret, where the minority has no ability to call witnesses, which they can in a real impeachment inquiry ?

The executive branch has the right to executive privilege, and has the right to draw a line in the sand if it feels the congress is attempting to use power not theirs by the Constitution.

So, the line is drawn, and the battles begin.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
No, it really isn't. There's no presumption of innocence in taking a victim's claims seriously or in arresting an accused person. The presumption of innocence factors only into specific parts of the process.

Wrong. Charges are based on evidence. Cops can not detain anyone for over 48 hours without filing charges. Holding one charged (arrest) requires a verdict by an on call judge. After this is a bond hearing and a verdict by a judge. All based on evidence not merely because the cops say so.



There's not necessarily anything wrong with a person weighing the evidence for themselves and deciding someone is guilty.

Except they provided no evidence. They assume because Trump does not release his returns he is hiding criminal acts.


- civil judgement? We only need a preponderance of the evidence.

Still requires evidence not merely an assumption

- bail or pre-trial detention? The threshold is much lower.

Still uses evidence

- me thinking badly of someone? The threshold is entirely up to me.

Which is why I was giving flack for thinking that one must prove their innocences. Ergo when not forced by government people do not hold to the principle.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
This is a power struggle between two co equal branches of government. If you recall, he never once claimed executive privilege ( his right) during Muellers 2 1/2 years, and gave Mueller everything he asked for. That netted him more investigations.

Must the executive branch kowtow to the legislative branch in everything it wants ? Why co operate in an alleged impeachment inquiry when one has not been voted on by the peoples representatives ?

Why co operate in an investigation that is totally non transparent, held in secret, where the minority has no ability to call witnesses, which they can in a real impeachment inquiry ?

The executive branch has the right to executive privilege, and has the right to draw a line in the sand if it feels the congress is attempting to use power not theirs by the Constitution.

So, the line is drawn, and the battles begin.

Also without a formal vote Trump and the WH can reject subpoenas forcing the Dems to drop it or take it to court. The latter will force Dems to hand over evidence to the defense which it has denied by not holding a formal vote.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
It is principle of justice itself.



When people take the position that he must prove his innocence by doing X they do not care about a trial. They already determined guilt beforehand.


See major inconsistencies.

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major ...


View attachment 97881


7 hours ago · In February, Cohen told Congress that Trump had adjusted figures up or down, as necessary, to obtain loans and avoid taxes. “It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it...

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies — ProPublica
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
It is one thing to watch a guy commit a murder, and say he is guilty,
Or to watch a President solicit aid from a foreign power to help him with his election. We saw Trump do this on live tv twice. It might not be shooting someone on 5th avenue, but it is a crime. And we witnessed it for ourselves.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Sigh, probable cause and conviction are not the same. Pre trial detention is based upon probable cause.
And pre-trial detention is a fair bit worse than having someone think badly of you.

In general, the worse the consequence, the higher the standard: temporary pre-trial detention isn't as onerous as a prison sentence, so "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't the standard for pre-detention.

In the same way, thinking badly of someone is way less onerous than actually locking them up, so the standard isn't even "probable cause."

Physical freedom is a right, so Trump's freedom can't be infringed without due process. OTOH, he has no right to, say, a business deal or a citizen's vote, so both can be denied to him for no other reason than the businessperson or voter thinks that Trump seems shady.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
See major inconsistencies.

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major ...


View attachment 97881


7 hours ago · In February, Cohen told Congress that Trump had adjusted figures up or down, as necessary, to obtain loans and avoid taxes. “It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it...

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies — ProPublica

You seem to ignore quotes that do not agree with you.

"There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted"

"Like other experts, he said there are legitimate reasons why tax and loan filings might not line up perfectly."

Some points were about estimates which lenders accepted as estimate. Expectations of profits are just that, expectation.
 
Top