So I was trying to find info on this case and just googled “Trump kiddie porn.” Holy shit on a shingle! The whole first page wasn’t even this case. Ffs the pedophiles sure love Dipshit Donald.
1 Like
That’s why “The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation” exists.
1 Like
Well it was just more of a “what was that guy’s name associated with the administration that was just in the news,” sort of thing.
1 Like
Dude WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT TERM IN YOUR SEARCH HISTORY
9 Likes
Hahahahah incognito
1 Like
The arrest would absolutely show up on a background check for White House visitors. And then someone would have had to follow up on it - likely call him - and make the decision to clear him.
Who was that?
3 Likes
Well look, let he who has never faced charges involving child pornography cast the first stone.
/gets buried under a deluge of stones
I’m amazed to see Republicans try to justify supporting some egregious dirtbag with the rejoinder “Well, are you perfect?” Like, “Oh, the candidate’s an accused murderer, but that’s ok, I once told a lie.”
2 Likes
1 Like
Who’s punishing him? Not being found guilty doesn’t protect someone from the facts of their case being reported, then or at any time later. Unless the article is factually inaccurate, it meets good journalistic standards. You seem to be implying that many people will assume he’s guilty because he got off on a technicality. That’s not a reason for not reporting that it happened.
The rules for evidence are important because their purpose (when followed by LE and the court) is to protect citizens from the State, not from the court of public opinion. There’s no contradiction between believing it’s a good thing when the rules of evidence are enforced and also thinking the person is guilty. And believing they’re guilty doesn’t doesn’t weaken those rights, bad legal precedent does.
Nor does not being found guilty by the State protect anyone from being subpoenaed. Any leverage Mueller has on Nader is by definition not the charges that were dismissed on procedural grounds.
I do not say this to be hostile, but I do not understand why it is so difficult for people to understand the difference between the opinion of the public and power of the State. I’m an ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights, but I also recognize that it limits the power of the government, not the views of the public, and in fact it protects the public to believe what we choose and print the facts.
So while I agree with the part of your point that the law is important, it’s beside the point.
If what you’re saying is that people should have more appreciation for the Fourth Amendment and the rules of evidence, I’m the first to agree with that, but I don’t see what that has to do with whether people believe the individuals are actually guilty.
3 Likes
I agree with your general point, but still… it assumes a better world than the one we’re in. The people in charge of the power of The State have demonstrated numerous times that they aren’t above targeting someone and letting the press do the rest of their dirty work for them, knowing that enough of the public swallows whatever the government spits that it doesn’t have to actually go to trial or result in a conviction for their deterrent effect to work: “The process is the punishment”. The State knows it can disrupt lives without a conviction and uses that against people.
Until people start mentally substituting “our constitutional rights mean something” when they read “got off on a technicality”, our rights will continue to be eroded. As long as we mentally substitute “they really did it”, the state will continue to get away with fuckery.
I would prefer that we work on finding a better way of enforcing rights against the state instead of the exclusionary rule. That rule has neither worked to defend the 4th amendment from the state and does let obviously guilty people off, a lose-lose for everyone.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
