mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, as for justice that is up to the jury and the legal system as such.
-
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!
Jury finally hears BOMBSHELL evidence against Trump
- Thread starter McBell
- Start date
Well, as for justice that is up to the jury and the legal system as such.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The legal system has its own problems with prejudice. As a common law country/federation, people have the right to administer justice independently of the state.
The election interference angle assumes that Trump was responsible for Daniels being paid and that the payment was made in order to suppress adverse talking points before an election. It's possible that Cohen acted independently in order to protect his client from adverse publicity, and that adverse publicity may not have been due to Trump having an affair with Daniels.
Political prejudice is typically expressed by disregarding the presumption of innocence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Please give a link to from where that is so.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
From William Blackstone:
As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter.
U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, that says nothing about common law.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Blackstone wrote about English law (including common law), and that common law was inherited by the American settlers.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, but as I understand it common law is not about a creator as such.
And if it is, it doesn't follow that I can deside what justice is in regards to other humans. At least not in some societies.
So I need an actual reference to not just an author, but a legal text that says so.
And no, the preambel to the Constitution is not as such a legal text.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Common law is often misrepresented as only case law, but according to Blackstone the term was used by the son of King Alfred the Great, hundreds of years before the court of the king's bench was established. Blackstone refers to a creator in relation to natural rights, and King Alfred the Great used text from the book of Exodus which describes the ten commandments in his law, although some ideas have changed.
Humans are a special case, since they have human rights, not natural rights.
Your needs are not my problem, and legal texts are not a basis for ethics.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, correct natural rights.
But that doesn't mean that justicie is in the hand of common people as you claimed.
And even human rights are not just what a given human claim they are.
As for the bold one please explain that further.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It is because people have natural rights and one of the natural rights is the right to the pursuit of happiness.
The difference is that I'm quoting Blackstone, who is a reliable source.
Legal texts have an author, and that author must have a source of law. If you walk it back then it's about deity, or a creator, as the basis for ethics.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The judge mentioned the extraordinary security and logistical problems that would be involved in jailing an ex-president (who has personal security for life as part of his perks of office). The costs and bureaucracy involved are daunting to contemplate.
I suspect the other concern is not wanting to enable Trump to pose as a martyred innocent jailed by a corrupt system for exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech (you know how that song would go) ─ though I'm not sure the judge would wish to admit to such a motive out loud.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Read the full court ruling warning Trump of jail time if he continues violating gag order
The judge fined the former president $1,000 and warned that going forward, additional violations could result in jail time.
www.pbs.org
People say a lot of things.
Where's the evidence that Democrats have anything to do with anything?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You mean like, when the NDA was still in place and she had no choice but to say this? That's not exactly breaking news. The NDA was dropped back in 2019.
"A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed a lawsuit brought by adult film actress Stormy Daniels to end a non-disclosure agreement she had with US President Donald Trump.
US District Judge James Otero dismissed the lawsuit because Mr Trump and his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, have agreed not to enforce the nondisclosure agreement against Daniels.
Judge Otero sent the lawsuit back to California Superior Court, essentially ending the case on the basis that it "lacks subject matter jurisdiction".
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, filed a lawsuit in March, 2018 to repeal a hush-money agreement that kept her from opening up about her alleged 2006 sexual relationship with Mr Trump in the final weeks before the 2016 US presidential election.
Mr Trump and Cohen had first denied the allegations.
But the President then admitted that he did pay the hush money to Daniels's lawyer but it was not for the campaign.
Cohen, who was recently charged for violating finance laws in December, 2018, said in testimony before congress that the agreement, under which Daniels was paid $US130,000 ($185,000), was struck to help Mr Trump win the election and to keep his wife from hearing about it.
He said that the President wrote a personal cheque for the payment as "part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws".
US judge dismisses Stormy Daniels's lawsuit against President Donald Trump
The lawsuit to repeal the non-disclosure agreement between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump has been dismissed because the President has agreed to not enforce the NDA.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
But it's not about the romp, it's about using money in a way that violates the law and the cover-up that followed.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The difference is that I can support my belief with facts.Yeah, that is your belief. I have another. Let us just leave it there.
The presumption of innocence applies for Trump like anyone else.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
You will never have complete knowledge of anything, yet you still have beliefs based on facts that you know and assumptions that you take for granted. It is true that there is a lot of political animus against Donald Trump, but that is not a reasonable excuse to jump to the conclusion that one can simply ignore the preponderance of evidence against Donald Trump. It ought to give you pause when you consider that the vast majority of those testifying against Donald Trump are staunch Republicans who had supported him in the past. It even reduced Hope Hicks to tears when she had blurted out testimony that supported the prosecution's case.
No, I'm concluding that it happened on the basis of the information that I have. And I'm willing to change my conclusion in the face of evidence to the contrary. I'm well aware of the fact that people make stuff up about Donald Trump and that he is widely hated, as I am aware of my own negative feelings about him. Nevertheless, there is evidence out there that has nothing to do with my own bias or that of other people, and too much of it is coming from people who have an incentive not to make it up.
Look, there is a reason why we have trials and don't throw people in jail just because a large number of people suspect they are guilty. Pay attention to the testimony and evidence being presented to the jury in this case. The trial itself is establishing the reason to believe that connection, and the jury will be charged with deciding whether it is enough to judge him guilty of the felony counts against him. They won't be the "court of public opinion", even though Trump is doing everything he can to discredit them. Unfortunately, his supporters will mostly be inclined to take what he says more seriously than what a jury says. We know that from the E. Jean Carroll case.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
I've said no different, but so many are getting hung up on the alleged infidelity when that is not the issue of law in the case.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I have another set of beliefs about what facts are. But then I am a limited cognitive relativist.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You don't sound very confident about your facts. Blackstone was a well recognised source of information about English law, and his references to deity are consistent with independent historical records. The opposing view, that English common law began with the Norman invasion, is inconsistent with Blackstone's account of the common law continuing despite the foreign influence on English law.