I don’t know. Let’s ask Paul Manafort.
Incompatible with Mob Rule Amerika, why do you ask?
Right. The press and the Uniparty are caught up in the hysteria. First they preach to us about respecting the rule of law, the investigative process, etc., then in the next breath they assume guilt by accusation. It’s like we’re all back in high school.
Lets ask the thousands of men who gets false rape and dv charges filed against them from women.
They never will go to court. Mueller knows Russia will never turn over 12 of their agents to us, any more than we would turn over 12 CIA agents based on a Russian indictment. So Mueller can avoid ever releasing anything he has to Congress or the public because it’s part of an “ongoing case”. He will never have to issue a statement that exonerates Trump. Meanwhile Trump’s foes can (they already are) point to the indictments as “proof” that it’s not a witch hunt.
There are many who don’t want it sorted out by a trail. law.
Notice how Wikileaks is not being mentioned?
Their conspiracy theory is that Wikileaks got the internal memos showing the MSM-Clinton criminal conspiracy to rig the primary from Russia.
Mulehead’s conspiracy is about a spam email that was opened with a phishing virus.
And we were assured that Hillary’s unsecured server was not hacked but it was never examined.
buncha people in the media and congress talking a lot of convoluted crap today
There is zero actionable evidence that anybody ever hacked the DNC. The FBI never examined the servers in question and Crowdstrike has very weak credibility. Once the DNC let another party (Crowdstrike) tinker around their server, that destroyed the value any evidence there may have once been there. Nobody will ever be tried/convicted of hacking the DNC and everybody, including the media and the swamp thug Mueller, knows that is a fact.
Innocent until proven guilty? Is that in that old stupid sheepskin under glass in DC? What a horrible concept. You can’t control the outcome at all that way!
About the same thing as:
It is the seriousness of the allegations/charges, not the substance of the evidence.
==
It is part of smear campaigns, politics of personal destruction, scorched earth.
Clinton was running for President of the USA on planet Earth. She needed to win no matter what other countries wanted. That is life on this planet. She couldn’t do it. It’s not Trump’s fault nor is it Russia’s fault that she couldn’t win outright. She had every opportunity between seizures to set the American people straight. Explain why poor Seth Rich, who worked for her, was upset enough to get her emails to WikiLeaks. What was his motivation? What brought him down? Hillary ran by the sword, she needed to be ready to lose by the sword.
It’s just Trump bashing. If Putin had surrender Russia to the USA they still would say Trump was wrong to except it.
Have Bill and Hillary Clinton been convicted in court of any crimes? Do you believe they are innocent ... never did anything wrong or illegal?
“Innocent until proven guilty...”
I’ve always hated that term. The word “until” makes it sound like a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion, like a kangaroo court.
The correct term should be, “Innocent UNLESS proven guilty.”
They aren’t just baby killers but had rather watch their children die in mushroom clouds just to get rid of Trump.
They would rather have a war than have the Truth about them come out - Putin knows too much for their liking...
If one is a conservative, you are guilty simply by the fact an accusation is made, and deserve to be executed on the spot.
It's been this way for many decades.
With regard to most uses of “innocent until proven guilty” they wrongly refer to private individuals and their opinions.
For example: If you as a private individual have formed an opinion about whether a certain football player killed his ex-wife, you are under no obligation - social, professional, or otherwise - to regard him as “innocent”, EVEN IF a court of law has not convicted him.
If on the other hand you are sitting on a jury considering the evidence, then the rules say that you must consider him (temporarily) innocent until you have heard the State and the defense cases and been instructed in the law by a judge.
If, after that, you vote “guilty” you are under no obligation to believe him innocent, EVEN IF your trial ends with the jury 1-11 to acquit and a subsequent jury finds him not guilty.
HTH.