• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Innocent? Approach used means Otherwise!

Luckyone

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
22,552
Reaction score
9,962
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In every case when a person is accused of a crime and is being prosecuted, the person and the lawyers defending him have to mount a defense. Simply stated, no one (innocent or guilty) wants to be "found guilty in a court of law".

There are many ways to defend someone but the easiest and best way is if the accused person is innocent and can prove it without a doubt. In those cases, the defense is to show proof that the person could not have done it. Witnesses, study of timeline and a proven alibi are the keys to proving an accused man innocent.

Nonetheless, if the accused man is guilty, there is no way that witnessed, timeline and alibi can be presented. This means that the accused person and his lawyers have to do one (or all) of the following:

1) Say "I didn't do it" repeatedly ad nauseam hoping that saying it enough will make the jury believe it
2) Confuse the issue by accusing the accusers ("they are out to get me" or "it is them than did it")
3) They misunderstood what happened.
4) Attack the process "It is illegal what they are doing"
5) Deny, deny, deny everything even when clearly evident guilt is seen and hoping that proving reasonable doubt will be the end result.
6) Make it difficult to prosecute (do not respond to subpoenas, requests for documents, or participate in the proceedings)
7) End was just and it justifies the means used
8) Someone else did it
9) "I am above the law. You have no right to try me".
10) Get a jury that is biased for you (not against you).

This is what is occurring with Trump and it is the latter and not the former approach that is being used. Innocence cannot be proven with witnesses, time line, or alibi. As such, the defendant (Trump) and his lawyers have had to use the the latter approach to defending him because admitting to guilt is not an option. Nonetheless, using the former means that Trump is guilty as his innocence cannot be proven by the best (and clearly available) means possible.

It really is all that simple. Innocent people will always use the approach where innocence cannot be denied.
 
I think most of us understand that the new fascist Democratic Party and most their Brown Shirt followers absolutely despise the Bill of Rights - so intensely insist that if their political police-state fascist government accuses anyone of a crime that person is guilty unless then can absolutely prove their innocence.

Your OP is another example that the new Fascist-Corporate Democratic Party and most it's "progressive" (a diversionary code word for "fascist") anarchists are where the Nazi party and it's followers were in the late 1930s. Or at least your message indicates that you are.

Thus, you come up with the logic in your message claiming that a person claiming they are innocent is proof they are guilty - so no matter what anyone accused by the totalitarian police state government says is proof of guilt - and not saying anything is proof of guilt too.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I think most of us understand that the new fascist Democratic Party ...
Click to expand...

Very Trumpian of you - a fascist accusing their targets of being fascists. Good job.
 
Oh cool. Another low-fact list from Luckyone. 90% less information and ten times the anger.
 
Luckyone said:
In every case when a person is accused of a crime and is being prosecuted, the person and the lawyers defending him have to mount a defense. Simply stated, no one (innocent or guilty) wants to be "found guilty in a court of law".

There are many ways to defend someone but the easiest and best way is if the accused person is innocent and can prove it without a doubt. In those cases, the defense is to show proof that the person could not have done it. Witnesses, study of timeline and a proven alibi are the keys to proving an accused man innocent.
Click to expand...

Well the Impeachment Inquiry isn't a court of law, but in general for a court of law the burden of proof lies with the State. The citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That being said, all the testimony in the Inquiry has been consistent. Trump drove the bus. He used Giuliani to run around behind the scenes to push Trump's demands in order to get around the State Department. Funds were withheld until Trump got the foreign government to announce/begin a politically motivated investigation into a potential political rival. These are very serious accusations, and anyone with a shred of integrity wishing to uphold the Republic would demand that a full investigation and testimony be given. But Trump has been obstructing since day one to prevent anyone with more intimate knowledge from testifying and documentation from being released to Congress. This is all very clear, and anyone who is the least bit honest could admit it.
 
joko104 said:
I think most of us understand that the new fascist Democratic Party and most their Brown Shirt followers absolutely despise the Bill of Rights - so intensely insist that if their political police-state fascist government accuses anyone of a crime that person is guilty unless then can absolutely prove their innocence.

Your OP is another example that the new Fascist-Corporate Democratic Party and most it's "progressive" (a diversionary code word for "fascist") anarchists are where the Nazi party and it's followers were in the late 1930s. Or at least your message indicates that you are.

Thus, you come up with the logic in your message claiming that a person claiming they are innocent is proof they are guilty - so no matter what anyone accused by the totalitarian police state government says is proof of guilt - and not saying anything is proof of guilt too.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my OP with your post. It goes to prove exactly what the lawyers (and trump supporters) of the guilty man are doing to defend him. Your post is a perfect example of it! You are even using the word LOGIC to explain what I am doing and that proves it even more.
 
Luckyone said:
In every case when a person is accused of a crime and is being prosecuted, the person and the lawyers defending him have to mount a defense. Simply stated, no one (innocent or guilty) wants to be "found guilty in a court of law".

There are many ways to defend someone but the easiest and best way is if the accused person is innocent and can prove it without a doubt. In those cases, the defense is to show proof that the person could not have done it. Witnesses, study of timeline and a proven alibi are the keys to proving an accused man innocent.

Nonetheless, if the accused man is guilty, there is no way that witnessed, timeline and alibi can be presented. This means that the accused person and his lawyers have to do one (or all) of the following:

1) Say "I didn't do it" repeatedly ad nauseam hoping that saying it enough will make the jury believe it
2) Confuse the issue by accusing the accusers ("they are out to get me" or "it is them than did it")
3) They misunderstood what happened.
4) Attack the process "It is illegal what they are doing"
5) Deny, deny, deny everything even when clearly evident guilt is seen and hoping that proving reasonable doubt will be the end result.
6) Make it difficult to prosecute (do not respond to subpoenas, requests for documents, or participate in the proceedings)
7) End was just and it justifies the means used
8) Someone else did it
9) "I am above the law. You have no right to try me".
10) Get a jury that is biased for you (not against you).

This is what is occurring with Trump and it is the latter and not the former approach that is being used. Innocence cannot be proven with witnesses, time line, or alibi. As such, the defendant (Trump) and his lawyers have had to use the the latter approach to defending him because admitting to guilt is not an option. Nonetheless, using the former means that Trump is guilty as his innocence cannot be proven by the best (and clearly available) means possible.

It really is all that simple. Innocent people will always use the approach where innocence cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

To convict someone of a crime you need some basic essentials. You need witnesses and evidence.

AS of right now all you have is

The DOJ said it didn't happen
The FBI said it wouldn't even investigate it
Zelenski said it didn't happen
Trump said it didn't happen
Everyone on the call said it didn't happen
The call script clearly shows it didn't happen
Every witness who testified stated they had NO KNOWLEDGE of any bribery or quid pro quo and they were only testifying to their own presumptions.

I bet you the Democrat party isn't stupid enough to even take an Impeachment vote because if they do, this will be in a trial setting and Republicans will be calling their own witnesses that Schiff refused to allow to testify. Like the whistle blower himself. Schiff can't afford to have that happen which is why he wouldn't allow him to testify in the first place.
 
If Trump had the legal requirement to ensure Ukraine was fighting corruption before he let the money go, why did he release the money without getting Zelensky's commitment to investigate the corruption that Trump is convinced occurred?

Simple answer.... Trump's story doesn't track.
 
less right said:
If Trump had the legal requirement to ensure Ukraine was fighting corruption before he let the money go, why did he release the money without getting Zelensky's commitment to investigate the corruption that Trump is convinced occurred?

Simple answer.... Trump's story doesn't track.
Click to expand...

It's stupid to pretend he wanted an investigation. What kind of moron believes that? He knew damn well that his extortion would not result in an actual investigation that no one is interested in for any reason.

He wanted the fake news announcement from a foreign President on CNN. That's all he wanted. Because I'm not a ****ing moron, I can see that.
 
Condor060 said:
To convict someone of a crime you need some basic essentials. You need witnesses and evidence.

AS of right now all you have is

The DOJ said it didn't happen
The FBI said it wouldn't even investigate it
Zelenski said it didn't happen
Trump said it didn't happen
Everyone on the call said it didn't happen
The call script clearly shows it didn't happen
Every witness who testified stated they had NO KNOWLEDGE of any bribery or quid pro quo and they were only testifying to their own presumptions.

I bet you the Democrat party isn't stupid enough to even take an Impeachment vote because if they do, this will be in a trial setting and Republicans will be calling their own witnesses that Schiff refused to allow to testify. Like the whistle blower himself. Schiff can't afford to have that happen which is why he wouldn't allow him to testify in the first place.
Click to expand...

The "innocent until proven guilty" approach again?

You are proving my OP. Trump and his lawyers cannot prove his innocence (though there are people that can be called that would prove it easily if allowed to testify and if they testify in his favor) so they choose to use the "prove he is guilty" approach. All it does is confuse the issue but does not prove Trump innocent. If that is enough for you, then go with it. Nonetheless, his innocence is not proven and if "it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck". This does suggest you are happy with a duck being the leader of a country.

Just remember that ducks are preyed upon by snapping turtles, raccoons, red foxes, black rat snakes, crows, largemouth bass, red-tailed hawks, bald eagles, ring-billed gulls and Norway rats. Ducks are also threatened by human hunters. Such a duck is not able to protect us from most anything other than from fish (trump supporters) who have no brains or ability to hurt anyone other than being food.

If that is what you want, keep swimming in the pond.
 
Last edited:
Democrats = Running on empty
 
ecofarm said:
It's stupid to pretend he wanted an investigation. What kind of moron believes that? He knew damn well that his extortion would not result in an actual investigation that no one is interested in for any reason.

He wanted the fake news announcement from a foreign President on CNN. That's all he wanted. Because I'm not a ****ing moron, I can see that.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree but you're offering an alternate explanation.

I'm asking MAGA Trumpers (like the senators and representatives [and those who repeat them] who have put forth "the President was legally required" argument) to explain what happened to fulfill that requirement before releasing the money? Or did Trump release the aid before fulfilling that requirement?
 
3leftsdoo said:
Democrats = Running on empty
Click to expand...

youarewrong.jpg

Republicans are the ones running on empty. Excuses for Trump behavior are getting more ridiculous every day. Next thing that the lawyers will attempt to defend Trump is likely to be something like "aliens made me do it" excuse.
 
Luckyone said:
In every case when a person is accused of a crime and is being prosecuted, the person and the lawyers defending him have to mount a defense. Simply stated, no one (innocent or guilty) wants to be "found guilty in a court of law".

There are many ways to defend someone but the easiest and best way is if the accused person is innocent and can prove it without a doubt. In those cases, the defense is to show proof that the person could not have done it. Witnesses, study of timeline and a proven alibi are the keys to proving an accused man innocent.

Nonetheless, if the accused man is guilty, there is no way that witnessed, timeline and alibi can be presented. This means that the accused person and his lawyers have to do one (or all) of the following:

1) Say "I didn't do it" repeatedly ad nauseam hoping that saying it enough will make the jury believe it
2) Confuse the issue by accusing the accusers ("they are out to get me" or "it is them than did it")
3) They misunderstood what happened.
4) Attack the process "It is illegal what they are doing"
5) Deny, deny, deny everything even when clearly evident guilt is seen and hoping that proving reasonable doubt will be the end result.
6) Make it difficult to prosecute (do not respond to subpoenas, requests for documents, or participate in the proceedings)
7) End was just and it justifies the means used
8) Someone else did it
9) "I am above the law. You have no right to try me".
10) Get a jury that is biased for you (not against you).

This is what is occurring with Trump and it is the latter and not the former approach that is being used. Innocence cannot be proven with witnesses, time line, or alibi. As such, the defendant (Trump) and his lawyers have had to use the the latter approach to defending him because admitting to guilt is not an option. Nonetheless, using the former means that Trump is guilty as his innocence cannot be proven by the best (and clearly available) means possible.

It really is all that simple. Innocent people will always use the approach where innocence cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

Dishonest Leftists and Dem wits want to encourage us to mentally convict Trump before he can present his full case.

They HAVE to do that because when ALL the facts are presented, they will have nothing to say.

Trump is innocent and will be proven so when the time is right.
 
babalu said:
Dishonest Leftists and Dem wits want to encourage us to mentally convict Trump before he can present his full case.

They HAVE to do that because when ALL the facts are presented, they will have nothing to say.

Trump is innocent and will be proven so when the time is right.
Click to expand...

How much do they pay you to post.that tripe?
 
Luckyone said:
View attachment 67269246

Republicans are the ones running on empty. Excuses for Trump behavior are getting more ridiculous every day. Next thing that the lawyers will attempt to defend Trump is likely to be something like "aliens made me do it" excuse.
Click to expand...

You post like a typical 50% er.

Until you can present a credible defense of Trump we all will know that you have only considered the bad half of the Trump story, much of that half is lies and inventions and myths.

So, nothing you say against him is credible until we know you have considered the bad AND the good.

Until you know why we LOVE HIM, you are to be considered nothing but a pawn of the enemy and a childish one at that.

:lol:
 
babalu said:
Dishonest Leftists and Dem wits want to encourage us to mentally convict Trump before he can present his full case.

They HAVE to do that because when ALL the facts are presented, they will have nothing to say.

Trump is innocent and will be proven so when the time is right.
Click to expand...

The fact that he could have proven his innocence every step of the way (have Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Barr testify) and prove that it is a witch hunt is not something that you question?


You don't ask why Trump doesn't do anything (other than words) to prove the contentions (Democrats are on a witch hunt) that he has stated a million times before? That doesn't give you any doubts?

It just doesn't make sense other than being biased-for-Trump or brainwashed-by-Trump. Do you ever use common sense in your life?
 
babalu said:
Dishonest Leftists and Dem wits want to encourage us to mentally convict Trump before he can present his full case.

They HAVE to do that because when ALL the facts are presented, they will have nothing to say.

Trump is innocent and will be proven so when the time is right.
Click to expand...

He refuses to "present is full case". He won't testify and he won't release documents subpoenaed by Congress. He's just running an obstructionist defense at this point.
 
babalu said:
You post like a typical 50% er.

Until you can present a credible defense of Trump we all will know that you have only considered the bad half of the Trump story, much of that half is lies and inventions and myths.

So, nothing you say against him is credible until we know you have considered the bad AND the good.

Until you know why we LOVE HIM, you are to be considered nothing but a pawn of the enemy and a childish one at that.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Well, I do know (and can give thousands of examples of) how "love is blind" and that is exactly your problem and outlined by you personally.

The fact remains that Trump can prove his innocence easily and prove it is a witch hunt by allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Barr to testify and has chosen not to do so. Why would an innocent man choose "not to prove" his innocence and prove his contentions?

Normal common sense would suggest it is because "they cannot prove his innocence and he is guilty!"

Until you can explain that, I will continue to believe I am right.
 
Last edited:
babalu said:
So, nothing you say against him is credible until we know you have considered the bad AND the good.
Click to expand...

It's hard to consider the bad and good while Trump hides witnesses.

BTW - Is hiding witnesses good, or bad?
 
rickc said:
How much do they pay you to post.that tripe?
Click to expand...

You project your own thoughts.

You apparently believe that no one could possibly post in support of their country, their form of government, their freedoms and way of life and the President who protects them unless they are paid.

You dont ask Communists that, do you?

You dont ask Islamists that, do you?

You dont ask Anarchists that, do you?


I dont do this for compensation.

I LOVE my country.

This is what the Minutemen would do if they were here.
 
Luckyone said:
The "innocent until proven guilty" approach again?

You are proving my OP. Trump and his lawyers cannot prove his innocence (though there are people that can be called that would prove it easily if allowed to testify and if they testify in his favor) so they choose to use the "prove he is guilty" approach. All it does is confuse the issue but does not prove Trump innocent. If that is enough for you, then go with it. Nonetheless, his innocence is not proven and if "it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck". This does suggest you are happy with a duck being the leader of a country.

Just remember that ducks are preyed upon by snapping turtles, raccoons, red foxes, black rat snakes, crows, largemouth bass, red-tailed hawks, bald eagles, ring-billed gulls and Norway rats. Ducks are also threatened by human hunters. Such a duck is not able to protect us from most anything other than from fish (trump supporters) who have no brains or ability to hurt anyone other than being food.

If that is what you want, keep swimming in the pond.
Click to expand...

Someone is guilty until they prove they are innocent?
 
babalu said:
You project your own thoughts.

You apparently believe that no one could possibly post in support of their country, their form of government, their freedoms and way of life and the President who protects them unless they are paid.

You dont ask Communists that, do you?

You dont ask Islamists that, do you?

You dont ask Anarchists that, do you?


I dont do this for compensation.

I LOVE my country.

This is what the Minutemen would do if they were here.
Click to expand...

Ignorant minutemen "perhaps". Only paid traitors or ignorant people do not question why proof-of-innocence that is available is not used, especially when it would prove his contention that it is a Democratic witch hunt!

You don't question that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom