Skip to main content

View Diary: DOJ: John Edwards May be Charged (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course, he is innocent until (0+ / 0-)

    proven guilty. He hasn't even been charged with anything, so he's as innocent as anyone can be. At this point we just don't know what happened.

    I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

    by doc2 on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:59:44 PM PDT

    •  Come again? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GAladybug
      he's as innocent as anyone can be

      In the words of Seth Myers and Amy Poehler, really?!

      •  That is our system. Until he (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, fumie, GAladybug

        is proven guilty, he is innocent. There's not even an argument about that.

        I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

        by doc2 on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:12:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GAladybug

          About these particular charges (should he ever be charged), you're obviously right.   But it's almost beside the point.  

        •  As a legal matter, yes. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GAladybug, roycej

          He is legally innocent.  He cannot be subjected to legal penalty until any charges are formally adjudicated and a final judgment entered

          But as a moral and ethical matter?  The public doesn't need to give him the same deference, any more than we can't talk about Bush Administration crimes because no trials have been held.

          It's a wonderful Constitutional concept but it's sadly and often misapplied :(.

          "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

          by auron renouille on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:32:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Under the law he may be innocent of misusing. (0+ / 0-)

          campaign funds.  But there is no question concerning his being an adulterous slimeball who had a child with his mistress and whose paternity he denied for as long as he could.

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Wed May 25, 2011 at 05:15:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, that's NOT our system! (0+ / 0-)

          The presumption of innocence applies only to the burden of proof in court.  It DOESN'T mean that one has to ignore the obvious facts until there is a judgment of conviction.

          To me, what Edwards was CLEARLY guilty of, even if the campaign finance violations can never be proven, proves him to be scum.  And I'm not even talking about the affair itself.  I'm talking about persuading one of his best friends and advisors to humiliate his own family by claiming to be the father of Edwards' kid.  I can't imagine ever being loyal enough to anybody to do that, even temporarily, and if anybody ever asked me to do that for them, my response would be to immediately go public with the entire story, because merely asking somebody to do that for you demonstrates that you're utterly unfit to hold any position of trust, much less the Presidency.

          Still PROUD to be a Democrat!

          by leevank on Wed May 25, 2011 at 10:42:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see what you are saying. (0+ / 0-)

            But in the U.S. someone just can't be guilty until that is determined by a court. As long as you are within our borders, you are innocent until you are proven guilty, of anything.

            I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

            by doc2 on Wed May 25, 2011 at 04:55:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is simply nonsense (0+ / 0-)

              Factually, someone is guilty from the moment they commit a crime.  The person isn't factually innocent from the time the crime is committed until there is a judgment of conviction.  All that a conviction does is subject you to punishment by the government.  But there can be other consequences of the act, even without a judgment of conviction.

              Let's say a teacher, in full view of dozens of witnesses, violently beats a child in his care.  Your position that he is innocent until he's convicted would mean that the teacher would have to be left in the classroom, since he's in fact not guilty until he's convicted.

              This business about what the "presumption of innocence" means is one of the first things covered in every criminal procedure class I've ever heard of, and trust me, it ONLY relates to the burden of proof in court.  That's why bail can be required in order to release a defendant from detention pending trial, and why in the case of exceptionally serious crimes, such as murder, bail can be denied altogether.

              Still PROUD to be a Democrat!

              by leevank on Wed May 25, 2011 at 05:39:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The teacher could be temporarily (0+ / 0-)

                suspended based only on the charges, without a conviction. That wouldn't be atypical. I think I see what you're saying though, that a person can be guilty of doing something, in a metaphysical way, whether or not he or she get convicted (or even caught). There are unsolved murders; surely there must be some people out there who allegedly committed murder even though they were never caught. And you are saying they are guilty of murder, even though they weren't convicted. I think that's true in Europe, but not in the United States because of the Constitution.

                I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                by doc2 on Wed May 25, 2011 at 06:59:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What I'm saying isn't metaphysical at all (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doc2

                  Someone is factually and morally guilty or not from the very moment of the act.  If anything is "metaphysical," it's the legal presumption of innocence.  (And just to be sure I'm making my point, I fully support that presumption IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT -- which is whether the state may impose punishment for the act.)  But the presumption does NOT mean that we're not completely free, as individual people, to decide on the basis of what we know that someone is guilty as hell, even if they haven't been adjudged criminally guilty.

                  To put it plainly, if you saw me murdering or assaulting someone you loved, you wouldn't be morally obligated to consider me innocent until I was criminally convicted.

                  Still PROUD to be a Democrat!

                  by leevank on Wed May 25, 2011 at 08:00:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site