The who is who list of impeachment witnesses

What I'm saying is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  Most Americans believe that.  I think you probably did before your TDS.  You haven't examined any evidence.  You haven't heard any cross examinations or defense arguments.  All you've done is state Trump 'commits criminal deeds'.  Talk is cheap.  I could say some democrats tried to lynch me and left a rope around my neck.  Doesn't make it true.

Charles said, Is he a criminal?   Certainly not. 

A Federal Judge and an entire office of Federal Prosecutors in SDNY disagree with Charles.

Charles said, What I'm saying is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  

As I said many times before, a person only gets a presumption of innocence once they are charged with a crime and it only lasts until a verdict in their case is announced. This is how it has always worked.

The conservative media you listen to is preying on your ignorance of how the legal system works. A really fascinating example of how this works is when you are charged with a crime, go to trial and are found not guilty. Legally speaking, you will once again be presumed guilty.  Job applications, professional license applications, mortgage applications and so on will ask have you ever been arrested as well as have you have ever been convicted and it is perfectly legal for them to assume your guilt in such circumstances. A simple criminal background check will reveal your arrest for the rest of your life. 

Trump isn't facing a criminal sentence. He is facing removal from his job. He isn't entitled to the same rights as a criminal defendant facing prison time.  However, Trump is free to resign so he can be charged. Once he is charged, he will be innocent until proven guilty.  

Is that the mantra you were spouting whilst yelling "lock 'er up"  at your neighborhood Trump rally? 

Charles is also conveniently ignoring the fact that Trump was found guilty of eight felonies as a result of the Mueller investigation.

There are also several documented instances of criminal fraud committed by Trump--his so-called "university," his real estate frauds, his mountains of unpaid bills--in many of those cases, he cut a plea deal by compensating his victims in return for a waiver of prosecution.

Trump has also repeatedly violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution. That's against the law, and neither he nor his lackeys deny it. Trump has ignored Congressional subpeonas. That's also against the law, and therefore a crime. I already mentioned his sexual assaults and rapes.

He is almost certainly guilty of tax fraud, given his refusal to release his returns.

So even if you are delusional enough to believe Trump didn't collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election, there's plenty of other stuff on his rap sheet.

Trump was found guilty of eight felonies as a result of the Mueller investigation. - WHAT?

Trump has also repeatedly violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution. - NO CASE GOING ON HERE

Trump has ignored Congressional subpeonas. - OBAMA DID THE SAME THING

sexual assaults and rapes. - NO PROOF

He is almost certainly guilty of tax fraud, given his refusal to release his returns. - I AM SURE OBAMA'S IRS WOULD HAVE FOUND SOMETHING.

As usual jerry lewis expresses his opinion, with no basis in fact.

Yes, Tom. Eight counts of obstruction of justice. The Justice Department said Trump had immunity, but he can still be prosecuted in the future.

Trump has indeed violated the emoluments clause repeatedly, whether or not you want to acknowledge that.

Who cares what Obama did? I'm talking about TRUMP'S crimes.

Yeah, no proof. Only 28 accusations. They're all lying. Right, Tom.

I don't know what you're babbling about re Obama's tax returns, but he made those public, as every other President except Trump has done. Our Fraud-in-Chief is hiding his. Why?

But yeah, Tom, go ahead and defend your golden god to the death. That's what loyal Trumpers do. Trump WILL send you that lollipop sooner or later.

Mark Wrote:  "A really fascinating example of how this works is when you are charged with a crime, go to trial and are found not guilty. Legally speaking, you will once again be presumed guilty.  Job applications, professional license applications, mortgage applications and so on will ask have you ever been arrested as well as have you have ever been convicted and it is perfectly legal for them to assume your guilt in such circumstances. A simple criminal background check will reveal your arrest for the rest of your life."

Mark, with all due respect, where did you get this information?  In my 35 years working for the fed, the application question was "were you ever convicted", not arrested.  Convicted vs arrested is an important distinction.   

Certainly a high profile trial will be disadvantageous to any applicant.  And believe this, there is no such thing as "perfectly legal for them to assume your guilt in such circumstances."  Administrative law regarding hiring is a tough nut.  If a boss chooses to non-select because he happens to know of an arrest but no conviction, he'd better have tight documentation of the interview, how the applicant otherwise does or does not meet the required job factors, but NO mention of the arrest as a factor, on paper or to anybody.  And how the one selected better met the terms of the job.  That boss can assume guilt in his head like anyone else might, but he'd better not put it down and sign off on it.  The applicant can come back and sue for discrimination or something, cause a lot of problems, even if he is somebody that nobody would want to hire.

In truth, I'd have liked to have seen how many times an applicant for my department had been "arrested, not convicted" before I selected him, 'cause I might consider that person to be of questionable dependability.   Depending.

Mortgage application?  Been too long since our last one (and we didn't have any arrests or convictions), but...really?  

Candy asked: "Mark, with all due respect, where did you get this information?  In my 35 years working for the fed, the application question was "were you ever convicted", not arrested.  Convicted vs arrested is an important distinction. "

The short answer is from my past profession, but you don't have to rely on my word of mouth.  This site put together a handy chart that breaks it down state by state. 

Yes, I have seen the question on mortgage applications. And professional licensing applications in my state take it even a step further. They ask have you ever been accused of committing a crime or other civil misconduct. So, in other words, if there was ever any type of investigation opened that looked into your conduct you have to answer that yes and then explain the details.  This would include a civil (typically a workplace) or criminal investigation that found that you did nothing wrong.  

Furthermore, insurance rates are based upon arrests, not convictions. If you get charged with a DUI, go to trial and get found not guilty you will still be on high-risk insurance for the next 5-10 years. Do you think someone that was arrested for arson but found not guilty at trial can get homeowner's insurance? 

Appreciate that chart, Mark.  My state is a no for public and professional (licensure, certification) positions.  The fed is probably more strict.  Again in my career, it was theoretically worse to lie on the application than to actually have been convicted.  Could still be up for the job.  But in reality, we know that one is a catch 22.  Most times a "conviction" would be a huge red flag when an employer reviews an application.   

Insurance companies, of course, know when we get a ticket for speeding or DUI or whatever.  We don't even have to report them.  I'm sure same for an arson suspicioun or arrest.   

Isn't it strange that arrested/convicted drunk drivers and arsonists seem to be able to get jobs driving school busses and as firemen even after arrests and maybe convictions.  Employers would rather offer an offender the opportunity to resign, i.e. just go away, instead of firing them outright, since termination is so much more fraught with legal challenges and difficulties to 'prove' the offense(s).  The bad guys just relocate to another town or state and get another job and do more harm.  Clerical people who embezzle from their job, get found out, go to court, pay fines and maybe community service (ha) and maybe even a few weeks in jail, then find another job where they embezzle again.  Somebody isn't paying attention.  But, as always, I digress!