Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She clearly meant that he'll have his day in court. Those pushing fake outrage are engaged in silly political theater.
The outrage, that is proper btw, is this - a lawmaker tells a blatant lie regarding the rule of law.
Everyone should be outraged to the highest possible degree where such a thing is concerned. She has nearly unlimited power, as do all our bureaucrat tyrants, and for her to make that statement on the rule of law belies just how seriously she takes her role tyrant.
She should be castigated, censured, ridiculed, shrieked at, etc until she or someone on her behalf corrects "the record" and explains that the rule of law is EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty by their accuser, in a court of law, after being afforded all possible due process, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of their peers.
No him-haw, no tap dance, no nuance. EXACTLY as stated.
It matters more than anyone gives it credit because it speaks to America's mindset where logic, justice, fairness, neutrality and civil liberty are concerned.
Originally Posted by tweet by Nancy Pelosi, in part
everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.
That is NOT the rule of law. It is anathema to the actual rule of law, while also being logically impossible. You cannot prove innocence because you cannot logically prove a negative, as in the absence of a thing occurring.
He has the right to confront his accusers, to be afforded legal counsel and due process, to be made aware of and examine all testimony and evidence that will be used against him, to have his trial presided over by a judge and to have his case heard by a jury of his peers. But he walks into that courtroom innocent.
What must be proven is his guilt, and the burden of proof starts and ends with the prosecution.
By saying "he has the right to prove his innocence" she lies twice, once explicitly, another implicitly. The explicit lie is "proving innocence." That is not the rule of law, as already discussed, and to put "prove" and "innocence" in the same sentence is a direct, explicit lie. The implicit lie is that Trump is already guilty by virtue of indictment (formal accusation) and therefore MUST prove his innocence.
That implicit lie is why everyone should be outraged. Accusations do not confer nor even assume guilt. Innocence MUST ALWAYS BE THE ASSUMPTION, and guilt must be proven. That is how the rule of law must function always and forever, else it does not function at all and we have no rule of law.
And even the slightest hints like Pelosi's statement must be squashed with extreme prejudice, as nothing else in our entire society needs to be more carefully, zealously guarded as does the rule of law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
