PDA

View Full Version : West Virginia Supreme Court justice indicted



roadmaster
06-20-2018, 07:14 PM
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:126f014d0dd14a4c800501dea368bd33/800.jpeg

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — In public, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Allen Loughry gave speeches about honesty and integrity in government. In private, federal prosecutors say, he was raking in money by defrauding others.
FBI agents arrested Loughry on Wednesday morning and took him to the federal courthouse in Charleston to face a 22-count federal indictment.
U.S. Attorney Mike Stuart said Loughry, who was suspended from the bench earlier this month, is charged with 16 counts of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud, one count of witness tampering and three counts of making false statements to a federal agent. The indictment says his fraud scheme began in 2013, shortly after he was elected.

If convicted on all counts, Stuart said Loughry faces a possible sentence of up to 395 years and a fine of up to $5.5 million.
https://apnews.com/469caa8e295244fbbdba3b72d7a445a7?utm_source=Twitte r&utm_medium=APSouthRegion&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

Peter1469
06-20-2018, 09:08 PM
He is going to get a lot of jail time.

Common
06-21-2018, 03:26 AM
He should

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 06:26 AM
Good. I hate corruption.

Safety
06-21-2018, 06:42 AM
Sooo, what's the difference in this person being indicted and the responses are pretty much a consensus on it being apropos, and someone else getting indicted and it being a soft coup?

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 06:43 AM
Sooo, what's the difference in this person being indicted and the responses are pretty much a consensus on it being apropos, and someone else getting indicted and it being a soft coup?

I'm not sure what you mean. Help me out here -- referencing what?

Safety
06-21-2018, 06:46 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. Help me out here -- referencing what?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/98410-Manafort-s-Rape

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 07:02 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/98410-Manafort-s-Rape

Gotcha. I supposed that the argument is that the special counsel using a microscope to drum up charges unrelated to the assignment so as to try to get them to flip on the President is akin to a soft coup. I haven't made that argument, and don't intend to. I hate corruption. Period.

Safety
06-21-2018, 08:15 AM
Gotcha. I supposed that the argument is that the special counsel using a microscope to drum up charges unrelated to the assignment so as to try to get them to flip on the President is akin to a soft coup. I haven't made that argument, and don't intend to. I hate corruption. Period.

I suppose that's why I didn't specify you in my response, but I note you were the one to attempt to justify there being a difference. I guess it doesn't matter whether or not you made the argument, your actions imply that you think the argument is valid. Funny that.

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 09:20 AM
I suppose that's why I didn't specify you in my response, but I note you were the one to attempt to justify there being a difference. I guess it doesn't matter whether or not you made the argument, your actions imply that you think the argument is valid. Funny that.

Interesting. Which of my actions imply that I think the argument is valid?

As an aside, do you think it is ok to use the mechanisms of government to intimidate people to effectuate an improper purpose?

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 09:45 AM
Has the government raided his home at 6 AM with guns drawn? Has the judge set bail at ten million dollars knowing he could not raise it? Has the government put him in solitary confinement?

Or has the government left the accused alone so he can prepare his defense?

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 09:47 AM
Gotcha. I supposed that the argument is that the special counsel using a microscope to drum up charges unrelated to the assignment so as to try to get them to flip on the President is akin to a soft coup. I haven't made that argument, and don't intend to. I hate corruption. Period.
Of course, that is not the coup. The coup attempt was run out of the Obama White House with substantial help from the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, and DNI.

Crushing Manafort is part of the government's effort to get anything on President Trump as collusion never happened and no crimes were committed (other than by the government).

Tahuyaman
06-21-2018, 09:49 AM
Sooo, what's the difference in this person being indicted and the responses are pretty much a consensus on it being apropos, and someone else getting indicted and it being a soft coup?


Uh.......Ok.....


At least he didn't insert race into the issue.

Safety
06-21-2018, 09:54 AM
Interesting. Which of my actions imply that I think the argument is valid?

As an aside, do you think it is ok to use the mechanisms of government to intimidate people to effectuate an improper purpose?The one where you quickly jump in to the defense of those that made the claim I referenced in my first post. It's usually called, tipping one's hat.

As an answer to your aside, I think people who don't lie or try to hide their guilt, don't have to worry about "the mechanisms of government" being used to intimidate them. Then again, I know your assertion is based upon your disdain of any negativity expressed towards this administration, while any intimidation used towards Clinton or Obama would have a blind eye turned towards it.

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 10:11 AM
The one where you quickly jump in to the defense of those that made the claim I referenced in my first post. It's usually called, tipping one's hat.

No. You're fantasizing again. Go back and read my post. I did nothing quickly and did not jump to the defense of anyone. Moreover, as a bald man, I never tip my hat.


As an answer to your aside, I think people who don't lie or try to hide their guilt, don't have to worry about "the mechanisms of government" being used to intimidate them. Then again, I know your assertion is based upon your disdain of any negativity expressed towards this administration, while any intimidation used towards Clinton or Obama would have a blind eye turned towards it.

Again, you're wrong. I myself have expressed negativity towards this administration. You know that.

I never saw any intimidation towards Clinton or Obama. They seemed to get a pass on everything.

Mister D
06-21-2018, 10:15 AM
The one where you quickly jump in to the defense of those that made the claim I referenced in my first post. It's usually called, tipping one's hat.

As an answer to your aside, I think people who don't lie or try to hide their guilt, don't have to worry about "the mechanisms of government" being used to intimidate them. Then again, I know your assertion is based upon your disdain of any negativity expressed towards this administration, while any intimidation used towards Clinton or Obama would have a blind eye turned towards it.
You're being dishonest again, Safety. Pattern...

Safety
06-21-2018, 10:23 AM
No. You're fantasizing again. Go back and read my post. I did nothing quickly and did not jump to the defense of anyone. Moreover, as a bald man, I never tip my hat.



Again, you're wrong. I myself have expressed negativity towards this administration. You know that.

I never saw any intimidation towards Clinton or Obama. They seemed to get a pass on everything.

You should qualify opinion statements and not try to present them as facts. In other words, you think they got a pass on everything.

Safety
06-21-2018, 10:28 AM
You're being dishonest again, Safety. Pattern...I understand you are feeling lonely because nobody wants to play with you, but you need to let this stalking thing go. It's embarassing.

Then again, there is a rule against harassment across threads....

Mister D
06-21-2018, 10:28 AM
I understand you are feeling lonely because nobody wants to play with you, but you need to let this stalking thing go. It's embarassing.

Then again, there is a rule against harassment across threads....
Dishonest and corny. lol

In any case, your criticism of DGU is unwarranted. I'll continue to say so.

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 10:47 AM
You should qualify opinion statements and not try to present them as facts. In other words, you think they got a pass on everything.

That's a valid statement. I do believe, it is my opinion, that Obama and Clinton have gotten a pass on everything.
Now that you have brought it up, we can count on you to also do so?:

"Dave, I think you are a racist"
"Dave, I think you are Hitler-esque"

Safety
06-21-2018, 10:50 AM
That's a valid statement. I do believe, it is my opinion, that Obama and Clinton have gotten a pass on everything.
Now that you have brought it up, we can count on you to also do so?:

"Dave, I think you are a racist"
"Dave, I think you are Hitler-esque"Count on me to also do what?

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 10:53 AM
Count on me to also do what?

Qualify every statement you make on here as being your opinion rather than fact. If that's the new standard going forward, you should hold yourself to it also.

Safety
06-21-2018, 10:58 AM
Qualify every statement you make on here as being your opinion rather than fact. If that's the new standard going forward, you should hold yourself to it also.

Why don't you quote my actual statements, ....and I will oblige you.

Additionally, why don't you let mister d know you are more than capable of holding your own, that you don't need a fairy godmother here, do you?

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 11:06 AM
Why don't you quote my actual statements, ....and I will oblige you.

No. I don't resort to silly little games like this when I lose an argument. It was you (in a non-responsive statement) that quibbled that my statement on Obama and HRC getting a pass was my opinion and not fact and I should post it as such. I'm merely pointing out the obvious -- that you now intend to hold yourself to the same standard that you sought to hold me to. Unless, of course, you have no integrity.


Additionally, why don't you let mister d know you are more than capable of holding your own, that you don't need a fairy godmother here, do you?

I don't need any help from anybody but there are posters here that stand for honesty and integrity and will point out affronts to both from time to time. They should be thanked and applauded rather than derided.

Safety
06-21-2018, 11:27 AM
No. I don't resort to silly little games like this when I lose an argument. It was you (in a non-responsive statement) that quibbled that my statement on Obama and HRC getting a pass was my opinion and not fact and I should post it as such. I'm merely pointing out the obvious -- that you now intend to hold yourself to the same standard that you sought to hold me to. Unless, of course, you have no integrity.

Right, in other words, you are more upset that your support of a POTUS, that aligns his policies with a Hitler-esque regime is called out, rather than actually be upset that a POTUS subscribes to such a policy in the first place. Once again, that is more of a reflection of the supporter, than the one acknowledging it exists. The passive-aggressiveness isn't a virtue, no matter how upset you may get.




I don't need any help from anybody but there are posters here that stand for honesty and integrity and will point out affronts to both from time to time. They should be thanked and applauded rather than derided.

I am so ecstatic you made that statement, now we can discuss exactly what "honesty and integrity" entails in your eyes. You see, that particular poster has spent the past two or so threads and five posts accusing someone of lying, but when challenged on providing proof of such accusation, they slink away into the darkness. Is that the kind of "honesty and integirty" you seek? Because to me, that is the opposite of what those terms mean. Maybe a self reflection on the company one keeps, or "thanked and applauded" is in order?

Mister D
06-21-2018, 11:33 AM
Right, in other words, you are more upset that your support of a POTUS, that aligns his policies with a Hitler-esque regime is called out, rather than actually be upset that a POTUS subscribes to such a policy in the first place. Once again, that is more of a reflection of the supporter, than the one acknowledging it exists. The passive-aggressiveness isn't a virtue, no matter how upset you may get.





I am so ecstatic you made that statement, now we can discuss exactly what "honesty and integrity" entails in your eyes. You see, that particular poster has spent the past two or so threads and five posts accusing someone of lying, but when challenged on providing proof of such accusation, they slink away into the darkness. Is that the kind of "honesty and integirty" you seek? Because to me, that is the opposite of what those terms mean. Maybe a self reflection on the company one keeps, or "thanked and applauded" is in order?
You lied about nathan and now you're lying about DGU. Why do you have to make things up about people?

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 11:36 AM
Right, in other words, you are more upset that your support of a POTUS, that aligns his policies with a Hitler-esque regime is called out, rather than actually be upset that a POTUS subscribes to such a policy in the first place. Once again, that is more of a reflection of the supporter, than the one acknowledging it exists. The passive-aggressiveness isn't a virtue, no matter how upset you may get.

No. This makes no sense whatsoever in the context of our discussion. None. This is what happens when you have nothing to say.


I am so ecstatic you made that statement, now we can discuss exactly what "honesty and integrity" entails in your eyes. You see, that particular poster has spent the past two or so threads and five posts accusing someone of lying, but when challenged on providing proof of such accusation, they slink away into the darkness. Is that the kind of "honesty and integirty" you seek? Because to me, that is the opposite of what those terms mean. Maybe a self reflection on the company one keeps, or "thanked and applauded" is in order?

Again, no. You were criticizing a poster's criticism of your conduct and demonstration of support for me. The fact that that particular poster recognized my honesty and integrity should be applauded and not derided. I try to keep good company but I am known from time to time to associate with Democrats.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 11:39 AM
Again, no. You were criticizing a poster's criticism of your conduct and demonstration of support for me. The fact that that particular poster recognized my honesty and integrity should be applauded and not derided. I try to keep good company but I am known from time to time to associate with Democrats.
Shocking! And to think I admired you!

:grin:

Safety
06-21-2018, 11:43 AM
No. This makes no sense whatsoever in the context of our discussion. None. This is what happens when you have nothing to say.



Again, no. You were criticizing a poster's criticism of your conduct and demonstration of support for me. The fact that that particular poster recognized my honesty and integrity should be applauded and not derided. I try to keep good company but I am known from time to time to associate with Democrats.LoL, now you are falling back to the tired ....and overused mantra of calling what you have no rebuttal to as being nonsensical. Seen it used to many times here, I had hoped you to be above such antics, but alas you have proved me wrong.

As to your second paragraph, all I will say is that you were caught off guard with my response to you, maybe next time you will think before attempting to use that line of reasoning again.

Safety
06-21-2018, 11:44 AM
Now that line of discussion didn't go the way you wanted it to, what will the goal posts be moved to?

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 12:02 PM
LoL, now you are falling back to the tired ....and overused mantra of calling what you have no rebuttal to as being nonsensical. Seen it used to many times here, I had hoped you to be above such antics, but alas you have proved me wrong.

Again, NO. Your comments make no sense in the context of our discussion. You were deflecting because you were defeated. I'm sorry, -- let me rephrase, it is my opinion that you were deflecting because it is my opinion that you were defeated. (Note how I put the new @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226)-imposed standard in there? You should also be doing so -- after all, it is your creation.)


As to your second paragraph, all I will say is that you were caught off guard with my response to you, maybe next time you will think before attempting to use that line of reasoning again.
Yet, again, no. I reiterate: You were criticizing a poster's criticism of your conduct and demonstration of support for me. The fact that that particular poster recognized my honesty and integrity should be applauded and not derided.

Safety
06-21-2018, 12:13 PM
Again, NO. Your comments make no sense in the context of our discussion. You were deflecting because you were defeated. I'm sorry, -- let me rephrase, it is my opinion that you were deflecting because it is my opinion that you were defeated. (Note how I put the new Safety-imposed standard in there?)

Sorry, there was no deflection, therefore no defeat, that is once again a juvenile tactic used when you can't intelligently offer a rebuttal. We can refresh the argument again, if you have misremembered already...I said you were more upset with me saying you support a Hitler-esque policy, than the actual policy itself.



Yet, again, no. I reiterate: You were criticizing a poster's criticism of your conduct and demonstration of support for me. The fact that that particular poster recognized my honesty and integrity should be applauded and not derided.

No, I was asking what you considered a boilerplate for honesty and integrity, because the member you were referring to did not display the legal definition of the terms you hold dear. I'm sure you think you can double speak your way out of the quandary you created, but it's not fooling me.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 12:21 PM
As an answer to your aside, I think people who don't lie or try to hide their guilt, don't have to worry about "the mechanisms of government" being used to intimidate them. Then again, I know your assertion is based upon your disdain of any negativity expressed towards this administration, while any intimidation used towards Clinton or Obama would have a blind eye turned towards it.
This made me laugh.

So you would have no fear if the government sent a dozen men to invade your home at 6 AM, guns drawn?

And you would have no fear if the government drummed up charges sufficient to put you in prison for the rest of your life so as to pressure you to make things up on someone higher?

And you would have no fear of the government indicting you in two separate jurisdictions so as to increase pressure on you or bankrupt you?

And you would have no fear of the government setting bail for you at ten million dollars knowing how difficult it would be for you to raise the money for your bail?

And you would have no concern or fear of the government that can revoke your bail and put you in solitary confinement?

Is your brain okay?

Major Lambda
06-21-2018, 12:23 PM
Good. I hate corruption.


The Feds are going full tooth and nail on this one.

Seems to me that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Over three century's behind bars , is what he faces.

What is the US Attorney not telling the public , and why a mass amount of interest In a State Supreme Court judge?

Ok. Loughry messed up, he broke the law, but there is an awful lot of nooses hanging in WV from the local news report I seen this morning. What exactly in the hell did this guy do , it is plainly evident, he severely pissed someone off.



Major Lambda

Common
06-21-2018, 12:25 PM
LoL, now you are falling back to the tired ....and overused mantra of calling what you have no rebuttal to as being nonsensical. Seen it used to many times here, I had hoped you to be above such antics, but alas you have proved me wrong.

As to your second paragraph, all I will say is that you were caught off guard with my response to you, maybe next time you will think before attempting to use that line of reasoning again.

Maybe eventually you will understand that no one is falling for your intentional constant attempts to annoy people.

As Dave aptly stated you consistently make emphatic statements and when challenged try to weasel out by saying they are just your Opinion, when in reality all you are attempting to do and failing is trying to be cute and wily. No one is buying it and thats why you get responded to the way you do.

Stop trying to intentionally annoy people just because they disagree with you. Stop with the worthless race card everytime someone says something you dont like, and stop trying to bait people.

As far as Mr D is concerned who you love to use as a crutch to justify everything you do and say, you are every bit of what he is and just as many times you initiate the exchanges. You are not the lamb here

Major Lambda
06-21-2018, 12:27 PM
Again, NO. Your comments make no sense in the context of our discussion. You were deflecting because you were defeated. I'm sorry, -- let me rephrase, it is my opinion that you were deflecting because it is my opinion that you were defeated. (Note how I put the new @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226)-imposed standard in there? You should also be doing so -- after all, it is your creation.)


Yet, again, no. I reiterate: You were criticizing a poster's criticism of your conduct and demonstration of support for me. The fact that that particular poster recognized my honesty and integrity should be applauded and not derided.


Safety is just trying to start an argument.

Call an airstrike , or naval gunfire in on him.

WAIT.......let me get the popcorn out first, I wanna seen this.




Major Lambda

Safety
06-21-2018, 12:30 PM
This made me laugh.

So you would have no fear if the government sent a dozen men to invade your home at 6 AM, guns drawn?

And you would have no fear if the government drummed up charges sufficient to put you in prison for the rest of your life so as to pressure you to make things up on someone higher?

And you would have no fear of the government indicting you in two separate jurisdictions so as to increase pressure on you or bankrupt you?

And you would have no fear of the government setting bail for you at ten million dollars knowing how difficult it would be for you to raise the money for your bail?

And you would have no concern or fear of the government that can revoke your bail and put you in solitary confinement?

Is your brain okay?Zero fear, because I don't do corrupt things then try to hide them. It's pretty simple really.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 12:32 PM
Zero fear, because I don't do corrupt things then try to hide them. It's pretty simple really.
And neither did Manafort. It did not protect him because he worked for Candidate Trump for 49 days.

It is pretty simple really. If you do not fear a government out to get you then you lack simple sense.

Mister D
06-21-2018, 12:35 PM
Hitler-esque lol

Safety
06-21-2018, 12:37 PM
Maybe eventually you will understand that no one is falling for your intentional constant attempts to annoy people.

As Dave aptly stated you consistently make emphatic statements and when challenged try to weasel out by saying they are just your Opinion, when in reality all you are attempting to do and failing is trying to be cute and wily. No one is buying it and thats why you get responded to the way you do.

Stop trying to intentionally annoy people just because they disagree with you. Stop with the worthless race card everytime someone says something you dont like, and stop trying to bait people.

As far as Mr D is concerned who you love to use as a crutch to justify everything you do and say, you are every bit of what he is and just as many times you initiate the exchanges. You are not the lamb hereThanks, but nobody asked for your opinion of what you think or how you feel about me. But, now that the cards are on the table, and given what you have just said to be your personal thoughts, how can anyone believe you will be impartial in decision making from this point forward? Simple answer is, they can't, you just let your temper get the best of you.

Damn, you thought you were posting to win some points, but you ended up showing the board how biased you are. :rofl:

Safety
06-21-2018, 12:38 PM
Hitler-esque lolBut I "initiate" it, :biglaugh:

Mister D
06-21-2018, 12:40 PM
Thanks, but nobody asked for your opinion of what you think or how you feel about me. But, now that the cards are on the table, and given what you have just said to be your personal thoughts, how can anyone believe you will be impartial in decision making from this point forward? Simple answer is, they can't, you just let your temper get the best of you.

Damn, you thought you were posting to win some points, but you ended up showing the board how biased you are. :rofl:

The board? Not even you think so.

Safety
06-21-2018, 12:41 PM
And neither did Manafort. It did not protect him because he worked for Candidate Trump for 49 days.

It is pretty simple really. If you do not fear a government out to get you then you lack simple sense.If he didn't do corrupt things, then the indictments must be a figment of everyone's imagination. But, since they are real, then the only one using imagination is you and your fellow travelers.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 12:42 PM
If he didn't do corrupt things, then the indictments must be a figment of everyone's imagination. But, since they are real, then the only one using imagination is you and your fellow travelers.
You have no idea about how our justice system works, do you? It is okay to admit it.

Safety
06-21-2018, 12:42 PM
The board? Not even you think so.But I "initiate" it, :biglaugh:

Safety
06-21-2018, 12:43 PM
You have no idea about how our justice system works, do you? It is okay to admit it.Are you asking for help understanding it? Just say it, and I will teach you.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 12:55 PM
Are you asking for help understanding it? Just say it, and I will teach you.
It is clear you don't know.

Fortunately, we have a lawyer or two handy. Dave and Peter, when the government indicts someone are they guilty?

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 12:56 PM
Are you asking for help understanding it? Just say it, and I will teach you.
Yes. Please tell me. When the government indicts you are you guilty? Should you be punished before the trial?

DGUtley
06-21-2018, 12:57 PM
Sorry, there was no deflection, therefore no defeat, that is once again a juvenile tactic used when you can't intelligently offer a rebuttal. We can refresh the argument again, if you have misremembered already...I said you were more upset with me saying you support a Hitler-esque policy, than the actual policy itself.

No. That was not the discussion here. Not at all. Go back and read the entire thread here and then please apologize and acknowledge your factual defeat. We can then move on. It is ok, everybody knows it.

Safety
06-21-2018, 01:18 PM
It is clear you don't know.

Fortunately, we have a lawyer or two handy. Dave and Peter, when the government indicts someone are they guilty?You forgot to include the determination of party affiliation. Based on the comments made on tPF that is the only deciding factor.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 01:20 PM
It is clear you don't know.

You forgot to include the determination of party affiliation. Based on the comments made on tPF that is the only deciding factor.
It is clear you don't know. You disappoint me.

Safety
06-21-2018, 01:40 PM
It is clear you don't know.

It is clear you don't know. You disappoint me.I can't begin to tell you how much sleep I will lose knowing you are disappointed...

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 01:42 PM
I can't begin to tell you how much sleep I will lose knowing you are disappointed...
It is a shame you are so damaged. It is what it is.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 02:59 PM
Has a prosecutor ever lied or withheld evidence to get an indictment? Have innocent people ever been indicted?

Safety
06-21-2018, 04:53 PM
Has a prosecutor ever lied or withheld evidence to get an indictment? Have innocent people ever been indicted?

Has a defendant ever lied? Has a defending attorney ever withheld evidence to get their client off? Have guilty people ever been adjudicated innocent?

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 05:02 PM
Has a defendant ever lied? Has a defending attorney ever withheld evidence to get their client off? Have guilty people ever been adjudicated innocent?
Th onus is on the prosecutor, not the defendant. I am delighted you know more about safety than about justice.

Safety
06-21-2018, 06:25 PM
Th onus is on the prosecutor, not the defendant. I am delighted you know more about safety than about justice.

Sure it is, which is why they are the first to speak and the last to speak. The burden of proof falls on their shoulder.

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 07:12 PM
Sure it is, which is why they are the first to speak and the last to speak. The burden of proof falls on their shoulder.
Your language is imprecise. The government must prove its case. An indictment does not mean the defendant is guilty.

Try harder.

Safety
06-21-2018, 08:00 PM
Your language is imprecise. The government must prove its case. An indictment does not mean the defendant is guilty.

Try harder.

No, you need to comprehend better. Maybe the problem is that I'm using words that are too difficult for you to understand, do you know what burden of proof means?

MisterVeritis
06-21-2018, 09:04 PM
No, you need to comprehend better. Maybe the problem is that I'm using words that are too difficult for you to understand, do you know what burden of proof means?
Yes. But when you use a word like "they" who besides you knows who you mean by it.

Did no one ever teach you the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant?

Safety
06-21-2018, 09:31 PM
Th onus is on the prosecutor, not the defendant. I am delighted you know more about safety than about justice.

This is your claim. You are talking about the burden of proof being on the prosecutor.


Sure it is, which is why they are the first to speak and the last to speak. The burden of proof falls on their shoulder.

This is me agreeing with your claim, even taking it a step further by showing how much leeway is given the pros because they have a burden of proof to overcone



Your language is imprecise. The government must prove its case. An indictment does not mean the defendant is guilty.

Try harder.

This is where you lost your reading comp ability, because you are attempting to argue something we already agreed upon.


No, you need to comprehend better. Maybe the problem is that I'm using words that are too difficult for you to understand, do you know what burden of proof means?

This is me questioning your cognitive ability between your last post and my reply.


Yes. But when you use a word like "they" who besides you knows who you mean by it.

Did no one ever teach you the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant?

Here you are again acting confused.

Peter1469
06-21-2018, 09:48 PM
Sooo, what's the difference in this person being indicted and the responses are pretty much a consensus on it being apropos, and someone else getting indicted and it being a soft coup?
I am not sure indictments are what the intellectual right who first wrote about a soft coup were referring to. That came long after the recognition that there was a soft coup to remove a president elected according to our Constitution. The indictments are very recent in the soft coup's actions.

They likely know their indictments will be ineffectual- they all do not directly relate to Trump. What they want the the MSM to flood the news marketplace so hard that public opinion turns against the president.

The MSM has done that, but Trump has better approval ratings than Obama at the same point in their office. And the public's view of the MSM is very low. Perhaps the lowest ever.


I don't call that a mission success.

donttread
07-08-2018, 07:46 AM
He is going to get a lot of jail time.

I get that he should lose hos job , be held accountable and be held to a high standard. But 395 years for padding the expense account, albeit in an incredibly stupid way, seems just a bit much

Major Lambda
08-09-2018, 04:12 AM
It ain't over till its over.



"The West Virginia House Judiciary Committee voted on Tuesday to impeach all four members of its state Supreme Court."


"The panel approved 14 article of impeachment against the sitting justices, according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail (https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/politics/wv-house-committee-approves-articles-of-impeachment-against-justices/article_f4795b83-ba20-5ac8-a267-aeb4b10060fa.html), which moves forward the possibility of impeachment for the entirety of the Supreme Court in that state."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/west-virginia-lawmakers-vote-to-impeach-all-four-members-of-state-supreme-court





Major Lambda

donttread
08-09-2018, 08:11 AM
I get that he should lose hos job , be held accountable and be held to a high standard. But 395 years for padding the expense account, albeit in an incredibly stupid way, seems just a bit much


This guy pissed somebody off

Major Lambda
08-09-2018, 06:59 PM
This guy pissed somebody off


A TV Station out of Huntington , WV started the investigation . One of their investigative reporters started the ball rolling. I wonder who put the investigative reporter on to the State Supreme Court.

I agree. Loughry pissed someone severely off.





Major Lambda

countryboy
08-09-2018, 07:26 PM
Sooo, what's the difference in this person being indicted and the responses are pretty much a consensus on it being apropos, and someone else getting indicted and it being a soft coup?

In this case, there appears to be actual evidence of crimes committed. Is this a serious question, or a lame attempt at satire? Don't quit your day job there Seinfeld.

roadmaster
08-14-2018, 12:30 AM
West Virginia’s House of Delegates has impeached all 4 state Supreme Court justices over spending and office renovations - AP