Image 01 Image 03

“Not Presumed Innocent Until Proven Not Guilty” Tweet of the Day

“Not Presumed Innocent Until Proven Not Guilty” Tweet of the Day

From Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So let’s anonymously accuse Jim Treacher of adultery, drug use and plagiarism, and see exactly how loudly he screams about a “presumption of innocence.”

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Chuck Skinner. | November 3, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    I think some readers may be misinterpreting Treacher’s tweet. He was mocking the people who are accusing Cain without facts. He’s on our side on this one.

Troll sighting in 3…2…1…

What ever happened to the constutional right to face one’s accuser[s]?

I thought that un-provable innuendo, and accusations made in public constitutes slander and libel. The attitude is very un-american ignoring a core value of our concept of justice. We recognize that mobs are not justice seekers and can get it wrong and commit tragic crimes in the name of justice ( or vengeance… small hairs breadth difference sometimes).

Airing accusations that have been settled is really disgusting and isn’t supposed to happen either. Where are the Civil liberties unions that are supposed to watch do this stuff? Why hasn’t some step towards leveling libel/slander been made?

Treacher? Pfftt..Please, everyone knows he’s not innocent of something, just look at those beady eyes, the sloping forehead, the nervous laughter… Wait, am I thinking of Peter Lorre?

And windbag, if you’re speaking of Chuck SKinner’s remarks, I believe they’re meant in jest…

Boy, if this is gonna be another one of those threads, I need some coffee…

if cain did nothing then the nra would have paid nothing.

cain did something he thought was benign but which was bad enough for the nra to pay off the woman.

if me or you had been accused of anything like this we would sure remember every detail.

yet cain has pretended he didn’t really remember.


that is very revealing.

it’s a cover-up.

added to his fliflops on abortion and his ignorance about china’s nukes, and his ignorance about the right of return, and his awful 9/9/9 plan that soon became 9/9/9-9/0/9 – well… i just don;t see how or why anyone still supports this man.

he is not presidential material.

Maybe not reliapundit but he’s considerably more presidential than the annointed one occupyng the Oval Office as we speak.

Get ready to Ruuuuuummmble!!


Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | November 3, 2011 at 12:55 pm

I’m no lawyer, but isn’t “presumption of innocence” most applicable to a court of law, where punishment is being dealt?

I don’t presume Cain innocent, but I can see a small settlement for an act that was admitted to be not overtly sexual. The $35K settlement was also partly severance pay.

From various facts, I presume Cain might make some women uncomfortable, even in his campaign.

He denied having knowledge of a settlement, then remembered details. I presume that was an awkward attempt to cover up, and not very honest. Also not very prepared, given he had ten days warning, and knew the issue was out there since he had briefed his previous senate campaign worker about the possibility it would arise as an issue.

I would still vote for the man, and liked him for appearing to be more “one of us” than “one of them”. But Herman is awkward on issue after issue. He should not just have a solid position, but be able to fluently describe it, and discuss nuances. My current presumption is that he fails to do that repeatedly.

Cain said he’s had advisers and has been boning up, but he still struggles. He is 70 years of age, and I’m almost ready to presume he may have lost some of the sharpness he once had.

I wouldn’t care if Herman had consensual adultery, or had a “wide stance”. But more and more he stumbles and struggles and lacks the clarity he claims is needed for the country. I might soon presume he is more interested in selling a book, and never thought he’d get this far in his campaign, and still isn’t preparing to get the nomination.

But I can make any presumption I want since they have no jurisdiction over Mr. Cain. And I constantly adjust all my presumptions.

    I see your point, but I will point that the presumptions you mention are, in fact, not presumptions. They are conclusions reached as result of observation and considering data.

      Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to Owen J. | November 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm

      well, there is some fact, but not enough for proof in court, I would think.

      I’m thinking a “presumption of innocence” is only a starting point in a court (or some courts). An individual can rightly use a process much more intuitive, using all sorts of prejudiced processes. These often keep us from going down dark alleys in bad neighborhoods, or makes Juan Williams nervous when Arabs are on his plane. But we don’t go arrest every dark figure in the alley.

Um – payments like that are made ALL THE TIME. By all companies. Because it’ll cost $10K just to call the lawyers, then you start spending money to have it all investigated, then there’s the trial. But the big threat the other side has is that they’re going to subpoena and depose all of the executive management as much as possible, for as long as possible, just to make you go crazy. So you pay the $35K (or whatever), forget about it, and move on. My Ex was a general-counsel for a really huge public company, and they did it all the time – $35K for a several billion dollar operation, to avoid a nuisance suit, is not even worth remembering.


    So why is Cain (and his people) falling to pieces over this?

      Crawford in reply to Owen J. | November 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm

      Because the situation’s been rigged so anything they do is the wrong thing.

        Owen J in reply to Crawford. | November 3, 2011 at 3:16 pm

        Very debatable. Accusing Perry (for instance) was an unforced error — not the result of anything being “rigged”.

        To quote a sage: “Of course the game is rigged. But if you don’t play, you can’t win.”

        Of course there are people out there that will say anything Cain does is wrong, just as there are people out there who will defend him, no matter what. Both of these sorts of people are idiots and/or people of bad faith and their opinions are meaningless.

        The point is: if Cain cannot handle the game being rigged, he should not play it. No one is making him play it nor does he need to.

          “…Both of these sorts of people are idiots and/or people of bad faith and their opinions are meaningless..”

          I expect that line from a democrat. Not a fellow conservative.

          Owen J in reply to Owen J. | November 3, 2011 at 4:51 pm

          Aucturian, Two points:

          1) If a person’s opinions are not founded on or subject to reality but remain fixed regardless of any and all facts, how then can those opinions be meaningful?

          2) What gives you the impression I am or might be a “fellow conservative”?

          Voyager in reply to Owen J. | November 3, 2011 at 8:32 pm

          Well, for one thing, you haven’t had an aneurism yet…

Frankly, I don’t believe the MSM, the DNC and increasingly the RNC. Most talking heads on TV just want to make sure they remain talking heads on TV. And far too many pundits in the blogosphere seem to aspire to be talking heads on TV so they are all too eager to sell their souls in the hope of landing such a spot…

The $35,000 is a big fat nothing. A few years ago, my husband was involved in a minor fender bender. It was so minor that the adjuster could not find a mark on either car. Nevertheless, the “victim” claim medical injuries and pain and suffering. Our insurance company told us that $35k is the most that can be paid out without a lot of red tape. They agreed that my husband was not at fault, but paid it anyway to make the claimant go away. I suspect that the “victim” and her lawyer make a comfortable living filing these types of lawsuits and collecting the payouts. I am certainly keeping this experience in mind when considering Herman Cain.

Speaking of “innocent until proven guilty” PJ Media just posted this:

I don’t know about anyone else — and I generally like PJ Media — but I think this is, at this point (and not to put to fine a point on it) stupid. I think the stupidity proceeds from amateurism and a desire to “get ahead of the story” or whatever they call it. But I don’t think that is much of an excuse.

I also think there is a presumption here that people should believe them because they are the “good guys”, not icky Politico.

Personally, I find that presumption bloody annoying. If you have facts that can be attested, print the damn facts. If you do not or cannot without “discretion” then shut up until you do.

One might hope this elementary lesson would not be lost on them, but one would hope in vain.

They do seem to be getting a hiding over there in the comments. I wonder if will have any effect.

I’m also wondering: is there anyone who knows how to do this job?

Doesn’t it bother anyone that the Left makes the standard for whether something is “bad” if it merely makes some random woman uncomfortable? They purposely make the standard ARBITRARY and then appoint themselves the arbiters of whether something is worth reporting. It’s an instant recipe for not reporting slanderous complaints about Bill Clinton or John Edwards or Algore…but for ABSOLUTELY reporting every jot and tittle about any and every Republican.

The media is corrupt. The sooner Republicans start explaining to the American people about the true nature of that corruption in a good-humored way, the sooner they will prevail. Until then, we’ll continue to play their game by their rules and then we’ll wonder why we keep losing.

To the ‘conservative’s who are inadvertently or deliberately rooting with the Left for the downfall of a Conservative candidate in an already weaken field of nominees + tenuous attempt to unseat Obama:

You’ve been infected if you think Politico’s retro-fitted story is a boon to a not-Cain nominee.

Want to bet if Obama’s polls doesn’t recuperate since all media attention has turned from Solyndra, the economy, OWS to Cain? They are playing us.

Who shall come to the defense of your candidate (or do you even have one?) when the media has digested cain and devours Newt and Perry?

If you prefer to pick your candidates based on the haphazard hearsay of media complex that’s dedicated to destroying all Republicans over studying the candidates performance at the debates + local appearances…than I’m sorry to say the Left has succeeded. The Republican Primary has been Fully Hijacked.