sorry...they are very similar.

and who says this guy sexually assaulted anyone???? has he been convicted of the crime???? no. innocent until proven guilty. who knows if the accusations are true??? maybe the women are mad that he wouldn't leave his wife for them, give them money, whatever. sorry....but all he is guilty of IMO (same as clinton) is lying and IMO poor moral character

not sure how someone can't see why they are comparing this to Clinton

1. both accused of some form of sexual misconduct
2. because these women came forward...there was an investigation
3. both lied under oath


the reason Clinton got off (no pun intended) is because he "didn't understand" the definition

Why do you blame Star? He was doing his job. He didn't initiate the investigation. He didn't hire himself. It was his job to investigate the allegations against Clinton. I'd say he did his job pretty well.

Hopefully it is not a joke like Clinton's case was. More wasted tax dollars.

We do not treat people here like they are innocent until proven quilty, that is a great American lie. If this were true, a suspect would never be arrested because they are presumed innocent, they would never be jailed because they are presumed innocent, they wouldn't have to post bail because they are presumed innocent, etc...

Not accurate of this country. You are assumed quilty and must prove you are innocent. If you are poor your chances of that are handicapped. That is why the innocents keep coming out of the new dna testing that is being done.

so a woman saying Clinton made unwanted sexual advances to her doesn't deserve an investigation?

no...you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. of course mistakes are made....but they were found guilty with the evidence presented at the time

Actually the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Starr made a joke of this countries "independent investigations". Wasting all that money to find out no crime was committed.

Like I said if it were true that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, you would not be arrested, jailed or bailed because you would be presumed innocent. It is the judicial lie in this country. You are quilty until proven innocent.

Well so what! Hell I'd sit around and watch The People Court all day if they paid me enough. I don't give a sh1t if it is waste of money.

wrong...the police are not judges and they shouldn't have that power. ever see the movie Judge Dred? I wouldn't want that to happen. the courts determine guilt or innocents through the judge, jury, attorney, witnesses, evidence, etc

there are guilty that go free as well. no judicial system is perfect

would you rather someone that committed a crime wander the streets until he is found guilty? not me. yes innocent people do get arrested but it's not up to the cops to determine guilt or innocence.

Understood.

But it is a lie to say that they are presumed innocent since they are arrested as a suspect that is supposedly presumed innocent, jailed as a suspect supposedly presumed innocent and bailed as a suspect supposedly presumed innocent.

But I do understnad the process and why it is necessary but it is "technically" a lie. You are presumed quilty and have to prove your innocence.

You don't even have to prove that, just prove that there is reasonable doubt.

they are innocent...just waiting trial. the courts...not the cops pronounce the judgement

but you said it right...they are jailed AS A SUSPECT...not as guilty. I would rather that happen even if it happens to the innocent to keep the guilty from committing the same crimes...or worse....hide to avoid a trial

no system is perfect...but it's better than just letting everyone go and hope they will stick around for the trial on their word

Like I said undersood.

But technically you are presumed quilty and jailed and have to prove you are innocent.

no...technically you aren't. only taken into custody based on someone filing charges, etc. they are only a suspect

You wouldn't be arrested if you were presumed innocent on sight, right?

So technically it is a lie. You are presumed guilty and proven innocent.

you are arrested as a suspect...that doesn't mean you are guilty.

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty until arrested then presumed guilty of being suspected of being guilty until in court the you are presumed innocent until proven guilty until arrested then presumed guilty of being suspected unless you just plead guilty and clear up the whole mess. Make sense?

In criminal law, a suspect is someone who is under suspicion, often formally announced as being under investigation by law enforcement officials. Probable cause for an arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

so ummmm, we're not really talking about impeaching the judge anymore are we