You don't think it matters when others accuse someone of committing a crime when no one in the Justice system or an investigation has accused someone of crimes? I don't know, that seems a bit off to me.
Ive said a million times that you and others are entitled to an opinion. Believe if you want to that he committed a crime. But it seems very biased and ideologically driven when no one in the justice system has accused him of such.
You don't think it matters when others accuse someone of committing a crime when no one in the Justice system or an investigation has accused someone of crimes?
Backup...you think it is significant. Tell me why? Posing a question doesn’t tell me why it is significant, especially in this factual context.
What is the “factual context?” An investigation has produced evidence someone has committed a crime (in this instance the someone is Trump), very strong evidence at times, and the evidence is disclosed to the public. In that “factual context” I fail to see how it matters whether law enforcement has formally accused someone of committing a crime by way of formal charges before people can reach their own conclusions based on the evidence. I refer to “formal charges” as this is a method of formally accusing someone of a crime. Another method to formally accuse someone of committing a crime is a grand jury indictment.
In the absence of charges, law enforcement prudently will not say publicly whether they believe someone committed a crime. This is the category Mueller operated within. Mueller conducted a through investigation producing some very strong evidence Trump committed a crime. However, because of some very compelling reasons, such the policy a sitting President cannot be indicted, unfairness in accusing the President of a crime without being able to charge the President with a crime and thereby allow the President to vindicate himself by means of a trial, hanging an ominous cloud over the President that would impede his efficacy as President.
Now, the comments in the preceding paragraph weakens your argument. As I understand your argument, a lack of an accusation by authorities is some evidence a crime wasn’t committed. However, where, as here, the authorities did not allege a crime because of formal constraints in doing so, while also saying they can’t exonerate the suspect, undermines your notion the lack of accusation reflects a lack of evidence to support the crime.
Mueller didn’t abstain from an accusation because of a lack of evidence to support the idea a crime was committed, Mueller did not make an accusation because of formalities that restrained him from doing so, the formalities being a sitting President cannot be indicted, and related to that point is the unfairness of accusing a sitting President of a crime when the sitting President cannot vindicate himself of such an accusation since the sitting President cannot be indicted.
But it is important to note, Mueller DOES BELIEVE there is evidence Trump committed a crime because Muller said based on the facts they discovered, Mueller couldn’t exonerate Trump.!
Now, if you just insist to have an accusation, despite its meaningless in this context, then you got it, in the form of Mueller stating based on the facts Mueller couldn’t exonerate Trump. Translation, there does exist incriminating evidence against Trump, evidence supporting the notion Trump committed a crime.
But it seems very biased and ideologically driven when no one in the justice system has accused him of such.
So what? Do you know what an accusation is? It’s really nothing more than someone’s opinion in law enforcement a person committed a crime based on the evidence, but baptized with government formalities. An accusation or lack of it by the justice system says NOTHING about the strength of the evidence to support the crime.
My goodness, read what you’re writing man. Based on your logic, evidence of guilt is an accusation by authorities, which is nonsense. By that logic, you’ve just contradicted your fabled “presumption of innocence” since that presumption begins to dissipate once the government accuses, ACCUSES, someone of committing a crime. How? How is an accusation EVIDENCE at of guilt or innocence?
The answer is, it ISN’T, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court has said the existence of an arrest and/or charges (charging someone with a crime is an accusation) IS NOT evidence of guilt or innocence. Trial courts admonish juries the filing of charges, formal accusation, against the defendant IS NOT evidence of guilt or innocence, and the jury is NOT to consider in any way the fact the government has accused someone of a crime.
As a matter of fact, any potential juror can be struck for case for believing an arrest or accusation against the defendant is evidence of guilt. So, bravo for torpedoing your sacrosanct presumption of innocence.
The fact is an accusation by the government or a lack of it means very little, no I dare say it means NOTHING, especially in this factual context.
