Sarah Palin Blamed By Secret Service

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Sarah Palin Blamed By Secret Service
89
Sat, 11-08-2008 - 10:40pm

Apparently, Sarah Palin, by

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 5:11pm
It has nothing to do with what I think.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 5:13pm
It has nothing to do with belief.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 5:13pm
Sure it does...show us the evidence if you can. The rallies were taped so there should be tapes. The Secret Service investigated so there should be testimony to support your claims. We'll wait...
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 5:14pm
LOL! After the next 4 years are over...the democrats will be throwing Obama to the wolves.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 5:32pm
Another of those 'trust me' issues? The investigation doesn't show it didn't happen, the investigation shows they didn't find evidence that it happened. Not the same thing. Which is why under our court system we find people guilty or not guilty - not guilty does not mean innocent. It just means not guilty under the law - ex. OJ.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-05-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 5:35pm

"I agree. I'm looking forward to Palin running against Oblahblah in 2012. With the ruin he will have inflicted on the country I'm sure Palin will get a mandate."


Spoken like a "true" patriotic American from the "real" America.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 5:38pm

>>> Spoken like a "true" patriotic American from the "real" America.

Thanks.

>>> Hope Obama sends a little money out to California for you before he creates the ruin you predict with such enthusiasm.

That would be nice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 7:06pm

The investigation doesn't show it didn't happen, the investigation shows they didn't find evidence that it happened. Not the same thing. Which is why under our court system we find people guilty or not guilty - not guilty does not mean innocent. It just means not guilty under the law - ex. OJ.


and if enough evidence is not found to support a claim it doesn't go to court.


of coure guilty people are found innocent and innocent people are found guilty ....


but let's say (providing you are a teacher)

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 7:28pm

I am not a lawyer and only took a few law classes many years ago - due to an extremely cute pre-law crush, but this is how I understand it. I think we have a lawyer or two who maybe will contribute to this thread and clear it up. Sadly once a claim is made it wouldn't matter. Personally, I would feel vindicated, but the damage to reputation would already have occurred. And that does get to the crux of the matter, not enough evidence does not mean innocence. We are supposed to be considered innocent until proved guilty, but once accused you have the taint forever. But really when you get right down to it a trial is not a guarantee of quilt or innocence - just a ruling made based on the preponderance of evidence.

"The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the judge and jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted."

Reasonable doubt = not guilty it doesn't mean innocent. We don't have a court ruling of innocent.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 7:39pm

Who said anything about trust me?

Pages