Trump Due Process

[Astrostar]

Trump likes to raise the issue of "due process" when talking about his staffers, i.e., Rob Porter, et al, forced to resign over improprieties. And, by doing so he solidifies the widely held belief that he ain't as smart as he claims and he certainly isn't as well educated as he would like to be.

Due process applies in a legal case, which the Porter situation ain't. According to Merriam-Webster's definition of due process "as the official and proper way of doing things in a legal case." Porter's case isn't legal since no charges have been filed, and the case isn't being investigated by law enforcement.

The "due process" Trump craves should have been performed by his administration, in originally vetting Porter and by taken seriously the allegations raised against him by the FBI last fall. As usual, Trump is just looking to blame others for his own shortcomings. And, had he cleaned house of Porter last fall, he would not be dealing with this issue now.

 

[Mac1958]

Since when does due process matter in politics? This is all about political advantage.

Both parties take every last morsel of potential scandal, add some of their own bullshit and hyperbole, and push it 24/7 like it's fact.

Due process. What a joke.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump whining about ‘due process’ is yet another example of his ignorance of the law, and the fact he’s unfit to be president.

 

[Humorme]

If we take Due Process off the table (as what the women are alleging would be a crime), you're left with he said, she said.

Not having pursued these cases AND the women did not offer up any complaints until a guy is about to get a really good gig, one could argue this is all sour grapes and relegate this kind of crap to fake news tabloids.

Whether a matter of law or not, I support the idea that a man has the presumption of innocence. It's way to easy to get believable sounding people to spew skeet about anyone else.

 

[Astrostar]

If we take Due Process off the table (as what the women are alleging would be a crime), you're left with he said, she said.

Not having pursued these cases AND the women did not offer up any complaints until a guy is about to get a really good gig, one could argue this is all sour grapes and relegate this kind of crap to fake news tabloids.

Whether a matter of law or not, I support the idea that a man has the presumption of innocence. It's way to easy to get believable sounding people to spew skeet about anyone else.

Good points, but they don't apply in this case. The Trump Admin.had plenty of abuse information about this guy from the FBI going back to March of 2017. If they failed to act because of a "presumption of innocence," and failed to investigate further, in the face of very strong evidence, then they are negligent and now suffering a situation of their own making.

The FBI had this abuser nailed. The Trump Admin. was duly informed. Protestations of innocence and "you have to remember the abuser's denials" don't get it.

 

[Humorme]

If we take Due Process off the table (as what the women are alleging would be a crime), you're left with he said, she said.

Not having pursued these cases AND the women did not offer up any complaints until a guy is about to get a really good gig, one could argue this is all sour grapes and relegate this kind of crap to fake news tabloids.

Whether a matter of law or not, I support the idea that a man has the presumption of innocence. It's way to easy to get believable sounding people to spew skeet about anyone else.

Good points, but they don't apply in this case. The Trump Admin.had plenty of abuse information about this guy from the FBI going back to March of 2017. If they failed to act because of a "presumption of innocence," and failed to investigate further, in the face of very strong evidence, then they are negligent and now suffering a situation of their own making.

The FBI had this abuser nailed. The Trump Admin. was duly informed. Protestations of innocence and "you have to remember the abuser's denials" don't get it.

Evidence of what? Were criminal charges filed? Did he serve time? Did the complainants face any kind of cross examination to the allegations? Accusations don't get it either.

What if the rest of the story is that a woman was drunk, on drugs, or just plain mean and instigated an altercation? Just yesterday, on Dr. Phil, a man admitted to more violence on his part than his girlfriend did. She said he threw her out of the house. He said he choked her while getting her out the door. She was the one who attacked him according to both accounts. He was physically assaulted and he stopped the altercation by getting her out the door.

The problem is there are two sides to every story. And we've created this situation whereby we say there is no excuse for violence, but if a cop is physically assaulted by a woman, he is authorized to use force and they sometimes even taze females with a stun gun to subdue them. Why don't we require a policy to force a male cop to get a female cop on the scene and diffuse it instead of it escalating?

That is a rhetorical question and we both know the answer. And many women, being fully aware of the law, push the envelope as far as they can, knowing that this so political they can get away with everything short of murder.

Unless the guy has been convicted of a crime of violence, then the past should be just that - the past. If those women considered the act a crime, they should have reported it or now be charged with failure to report a crime. If it was reported and a police report generated... and they guy did not go to jail, well you got your answer.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If there are no charges, no legal proceedings and no criminal case, Porter has done nothing wrong and should not be fired.

The effect of this punishment upon allegation is to turn the entire nation into one huge college campus where social wrongs can result in expulsion. It's not a legal proceeding right, so the social justice activists can do anything they want. How about this? We put social justice back into the churches and require wrong doers to wear a scarlet letter. Only instead of sewing in on their clothing, we tattoo it on their faces.

 

[Astrostar]

If we take Due Process off the table (as what the women are alleging would be a crime), you're left with he said, she said.

Not having pursued these cases AND the women did not offer up any complaints until a guy is about to get a really good gig, one could argue this is all sour grapes and relegate this kind of crap to fake news tabloids.

Whether a matter of law or not, I support the idea that a man has the presumption of innocence. It's way to easy to get believable sounding people to spew skeet about anyone else.

Good points, but they don't apply in this case. The Trump Admin.had plenty of abuse information about this guy from the FBI going back to March of 2017. If they failed to act because of a "presumption of innocence," and failed to investigate further, in the face of very strong evidence, then they are negligent and now suffering a situation of their own making.

The FBI had this abuser nailed. The Trump Admin. was duly informed. Protestations of innocence and "you have to remember the abuser's denials" don't get it.

Evidence of what? Were criminal charges filed? Did he serve time? Did the complainants face any kind of cross examination to the allegations? Accusations don't get it either.

What if the rest of the story is that a woman was drunk, on drugs, or just plain mean and instigated an altercation? Just yesterday, on Dr. Phil, a man admitted to more violence on his part than his girlfriend did. She said he threw her out of the house. He said he choked her while getting her out the door. She was the one who attacked him according to both accounts. He was physically assaulted and he stopped the altercation by getting her out the door.

The problem is there are two sides to every story. And we've created this situation whereby we say there is no excuse for violence, but if a cop is physically assaulted by a woman, he is authorized to use force and they sometimes even taze females with a stun gun to subdue them. Why don't we require a policy to force a male cop to get a female cop on the scene and diffuse it instead of it escalating?

That is a rhetorical question and we both know the answer. And many women, being fully aware of the law, push the envelope as far as they can, knowing that this so political they can get away with everything short of murder.

Unless the guy has been convicted of a crime of violence, then the past should be just that - the past. If those women considered the act a crime, they should have reported it or now be charged with failure to report a crime. If it was reported and a police report generated... and they guy did not go to jail, well you got your answer.

Doesn't matter. The FBI did their job and informed Trump & Co. that they had a potential problem in placing a possible abuser on the WH staff. Hiring the "very best people" certainly didn't happen in this case. And, you don't need formal criminal charges to render the abuser guilty in the eyes of the WH. Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do. You might have not had enough to obtain a criminal conviction in a court of law, but you certainly had enough to keep this guy off of the WH payroll. So where is the Trump WH now? Dealing with a public relations crisis of their own making and an ongoing conundrum for Trump. Being an admitted abuser himself, and with more credible charges of abuse following him around, he has to profess innocence and also defend those also accused, regardless of the evidence or credibility of the accusers. BTW, Trump sure has been deficient in defending Harvey Weinstein, who has also claimed innocence.

 

[Humorme]

If we take Due Process off the table (as what the women are alleging would be a crime), you're left with he said, she said.

Not having pursued these cases AND the women did not offer up any complaints until a guy is about to get a really good gig, one could argue this is all sour grapes and relegate this kind of crap to fake news tabloids.

Whether a matter of law or not, I support the idea that a man has the presumption of innocence. It's way to easy to get believable sounding people to spew skeet about anyone else.

Good points, but they don't apply in this case. The Trump Admin.had plenty of abuse information about this guy from the FBI going back to March of 2017. If they failed to act because of a "presumption of innocence," and failed to investigate further, in the face of very strong evidence, then they are negligent and now suffering a situation of their own making.

The FBI had this abuser nailed. The Trump Admin. was duly informed. Protestations of innocence and "you have to remember the abuser's denials" don't get it.

Evidence of what? Were criminal charges filed? Did he serve time? Did the complainants face any kind of cross examination to the allegations? Accusations don't get it either.

What if the rest of the story is that a woman was drunk, on drugs, or just plain mean and instigated an altercation? Just yesterday, on Dr. Phil, a man admitted to more violence on his part than his girlfriend did. She said he threw her out of the house. He said he choked her while getting her out the door. She was the one who attacked him according to both accounts. He was physically assaulted and he stopped the altercation by getting her out the door.

The problem is there are two sides to every story. And we've created this situation whereby we say there is no excuse for violence, but if a cop is physically assaulted by a woman, he is authorized to use force and they sometimes even taze females with a stun gun to subdue them. Why don't we require a policy to force a male cop to get a female cop on the scene and diffuse it instead of it escalating?

That is a rhetorical question and we both know the answer. And many women, being fully aware of the law, push the envelope as far as they can, knowing that this so political they can get away with everything short of murder.

Unless the guy has been convicted of a crime of violence, then the past should be just that - the past. If those women considered the act a crime, they should have reported it or now be charged with failure to report a crime. If it was reported and a police report generated... and they guy did not go to jail, well you got your answer.

Doesn't matter. The FBI did their job and informed Trump & Co. that they had a potential problem in placing a possible abuser on the WH staff. Hiring the "very best people" certainly didn't happen in this case. And, you don't need formal criminal charges to render the abuser guilty in the eyes of the WH. Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do. You might have not had enough to obtain a criminal conviction in a court of law, but you certainly had enough to keep this guy off of the WH payroll. So where is the Trump WH now? Dealing with a public relations crisis of their own making and an ongoing conundrum for Trump. Being an admitted abuser himself, and with more credible charges of abuse following him around, he has to profess innocence and also defend those also accused, regardless of the evidence or credibility of the accusers. BTW, Trump sure has been deficient in defending Harvey Weinstein, who has also claimed innocence.

You have not shown any proof of any abuse. Period.

You should really consider what it would feel like to have your life ripped apart just because someone else could make legions of people believe a twisted version of events. And make them believe it AFTER the matter was investigated when it took place by competent investigators.

 

[Tilly]

Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do.

Innocent people also protest their innocence.

 

[Lastamender]

Trump whining about ‘due process’ is yet another example of his ignorance of the law, and the fact he’s unfit to be president.

Oh yeah, that is the straw that broke the camels back, get a life.

 

[Borillar]

LOL. "Lock her up" Trump is now concerned with due process? Give me a break.

 

[Humorme]

Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do.

Innocent people also protest their innocence.

There is a catch 22. There is a legal maxim:

"When any person is accused of a crime, or charged with any fact, and he does not deny it, in general, the presumption is very strong that the charge is correct."

Legal Definition of Silence

Now, let's put some context to this. According to one news account:

"The only incident, Willoughby said, in which Porter physically abused her was in December of 2010.
"We were in a fight and I disengaged from the fight after screaming at each other. I took a shower and Rob followed me fairly shortly after and grabbed me from the shower by my shoulders up close to my neck and pulled me out to continue to yell at me," she said. "He immediately saw the look of shock and terror on my face and released me and apologized and attempted to make things right."

Rob Porter's ex-wives detail abuse allegations - CNNPolitics

So, this physical episode begins as a mutual fight AND nobody is publishing Rob Porter's side of this issue. Had they been drinking? Who started this squabble? We don't really know.

And now Porter remains silent as he's already lost his job and the media has tried, convicted, and sentenced him for a single act that clearly has many unanswered questions - AND a Rob Porter who was just as surprised by the fight as anyone else. It was investigated by police; Porter was not arrested. Still there will be that segment of society that will string the man up by the balls with only a partial amount of "evidence" being used to draw their conclusions.

 

[Astrostar]

If we take Due Process off the table (as what the women are alleging would be a crime), you're left with he said, she said.

Not having pursued these cases AND the women did not offer up any complaints until a guy is about to get a really good gig, one could argue this is all sour grapes and relegate this kind of crap to fake news tabloids.

Whether a matter of law or not, I support the idea that a man has the presumption of innocence. It's way to easy to get believable sounding people to spew skeet about anyone else.

Good points, but they don't apply in this case. The Trump Admin.had plenty of abuse information about this guy from the FBI going back to March of 2017. If they failed to act because of a "presumption of innocence," and failed to investigate further, in the face of very strong evidence, then they are negligent and now suffering a situation of their own making.

The FBI had this abuser nailed. The Trump Admin. was duly informed. Protestations of innocence and "you have to remember the abuser's denials" don't get it.

Evidence of what? Were criminal charges filed? Did he serve time? Did the complainants face any kind of cross examination to the allegations? Accusations don't get it either.

What if the rest of the story is that a woman was drunk, on drugs, or just plain mean and instigated an altercation? Just yesterday, on Dr. Phil, a man admitted to more violence on his part than his girlfriend did. She said he threw her out of the house. He said he choked her while getting her out the door. She was the one who attacked him according to both accounts. He was physically assaulted and he stopped the altercation by getting her out the door.

The problem is there are two sides to every story. And we've created this situation whereby we say there is no excuse for violence, but if a cop is physically assaulted by a woman, he is authorized to use force and they sometimes even taze females with a stun gun to subdue them. Why don't we require a policy to force a male cop to get a female cop on the scene and diffuse it instead of it escalating?

That is a rhetorical question and we both know the answer. And many women, being fully aware of the law, push the envelope as far as they can, knowing that this so political they can get away with everything short of murder.

Unless the guy has been convicted of a crime of violence, then the past should be just that - the past. If those women considered the act a crime, they should have reported it or now be charged with failure to report a crime. If it was reported and a police report generated... and they guy did not go to jail, well you got your answer.

Doesn't matter. The FBI did their job and informed Trump & Co. that they had a potential problem in placing a possible abuser on the WH staff. Hiring the "very best people" certainly didn't happen in this case. And, you don't need formal criminal charges to render the abuser guilty in the eyes of the WH. Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do. You might have not had enough to obtain a criminal conviction in a court of law, but you certainly had enough to keep this guy off of the WH payroll. So where is the Trump WH now? Dealing with a public relations crisis of their own making and an ongoing conundrum for Trump. Being an admitted abuser himself, and with more credible charges of abuse following him around, he has to profess innocence and also defend those also accused, regardless of the evidence or credibility of the accusers. BTW, Trump sure has been deficient in defending Harvey Weinstein, who has also claimed innocence.

You have not shown any proof of any abuse. Period.

You should really consider what it would feel like to have your life ripped apart just because someone else could make legions of people believe a twisted version of events. And make them believe it AFTER the matter was investigated when it took place by competent investigators.

I don't have to, but the FBI sure did!!!!!

 

[Astrostar]

Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do.

Innocent people also protest their innocence.

Doesn't work for this case, not with all the FBI had on this abuser, which was shown to the WH. Get his sorry ass gone!!

 

[Tilly]

Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do.

Innocent people also protest their innocence.

Doesn't work for this case, not with all the FBI had on this abuser, which was shown to the WH. Get his sorry ass gone!!

Please elaborate exactly on what the FBI had.

 

[Humorme]

If we take Due Process off the table (as what the women are alleging would be a crime), you're left with he said, she said.

Not having pursued these cases AND the women did not offer up any complaints until a guy is about to get a really good gig, one could argue this is all sour grapes and relegate this kind of crap to fake news tabloids.

Whether a matter of law or not, I support the idea that a man has the presumption of innocence. It's way to easy to get believable sounding people to spew skeet about anyone else.

Good points, but they don't apply in this case. The Trump Admin.had plenty of abuse information about this guy from the FBI going back to March of 2017. If they failed to act because of a "presumption of innocence," and failed to investigate further, in the face of very strong evidence, then they are negligent and now suffering a situation of their own making.

The FBI had this abuser nailed. The Trump Admin. was duly informed. Protestations of innocence and "you have to remember the abuser's denials" don't get it.

Evidence of what? Were criminal charges filed? Did he serve time? Did the complainants face any kind of cross examination to the allegations? Accusations don't get it either.

What if the rest of the story is that a woman was drunk, on drugs, or just plain mean and instigated an altercation? Just yesterday, on Dr. Phil, a man admitted to more violence on his part than his girlfriend did. She said he threw her out of the house. He said he choked her while getting her out the door. She was the one who attacked him according to both accounts. He was physically assaulted and he stopped the altercation by getting her out the door.

The problem is there are two sides to every story. And we've created this situation whereby we say there is no excuse for violence, but if a cop is physically assaulted by a woman, he is authorized to use force and they sometimes even taze females with a stun gun to subdue them. Why don't we require a policy to force a male cop to get a female cop on the scene and diffuse it instead of it escalating?

That is a rhetorical question and we both know the answer. And many women, being fully aware of the law, push the envelope as far as they can, knowing that this so political they can get away with everything short of murder.

Unless the guy has been convicted of a crime of violence, then the past should be just that - the past. If those women considered the act a crime, they should have reported it or now be charged with failure to report a crime. If it was reported and a police report generated... and they guy did not go to jail, well you got your answer.

Doesn't matter. The FBI did their job and informed Trump & Co. that they had a potential problem in placing a possible abuser on the WH staff. Hiring the "very best people" certainly didn't happen in this case. And, you don't need formal criminal charges to render the abuser guilty in the eyes of the WH. Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do. You might have not had enough to obtain a criminal conviction in a court of law, but you certainly had enough to keep this guy off of the WH payroll. So where is the Trump WH now? Dealing with a public relations crisis of their own making and an ongoing conundrum for Trump. Being an admitted abuser himself, and with more credible charges of abuse following him around, he has to profess innocence and also defend those also accused, regardless of the evidence or credibility of the accusers. BTW, Trump sure has been deficient in defending Harvey Weinstein, who has also claimed innocence.

You have not shown any proof of any abuse. Period.

You should really consider what it would feel like to have your life ripped apart just because someone else could make legions of people believe a twisted version of events. And make them believe it AFTER the matter was investigated when it took place by competent investigators.

I don't have to, but the FBI sure did!!!!!

Seems to me that the FBI investigation relies on the testimony of one person per alleged event with the one I cited telling a very different story than what we're supposed to believe.

 

[Humorme]

Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do.

Innocent people also protest their innocence.

Doesn't work for this case, not with all the FBI had on this abuser, which was shown to the WH. Get his sorry ass gone!!

Please elaborate exactly on what the FBI had.

Well, the Fibbies did have their version of an "investigation" not an indictment, not an arrest, no real proof of a crime. But, they did find people willing to say bad things about Rob Porter.

What would be telling is examining how their lives turned out after Porter became successful.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What's funny is that drumpf has been demanding an end to due process since the start of his fiasco and before. He still does it at every one of his kkk rallies.

And the stupid crown applauds.

Why is that?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Every abuser, including Trump, will protest their "innocence." It's what they do.

Innocent people also protest their innocence.

Doesn't work for this case, not with all the FBI had on this abuser, which was shown to the WH. Get his sorry ass gone!!

I agree. So much evidence/proof and yet drumpf ignored it until he was caught. And then, of course, he lied. SSDD