Pelosi Scraps Presumption Of Innocence: Trump Needs To Prove He Is Innocent

[GURPS]

“It’s called an inquiry,” Pelosi said on Thursday. “And if the president has something that is exculpatory, Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence, then he should make that known and that’s part of the inquiry. And so far, we haven’t seen that, but we welcome it. And that’s what an inquiry’s about.”

Pelosi then repeated that sentiment on Sunday in response to Brennan asking her, “Do you think you’ll go through all of this and not vote to impeach the President?”

“That remains – the facts, if the President has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this, which we haven’t seen,” Pelosi responded. “His transcript of a phone call is tucked away in a highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence server so we can’t see that. If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpa, blame, then we look forward to seeing it.”





https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelo...innocence-trump-needs-to-prove-he-is-innocent

 

[limblips]

“ If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpa, blame, then we look forward to seeing it.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelo...innocence-trump-needs-to-prove-he-is-innocent

Nanny has to explain what exculpatory means? That says so much about her supporters and how little she knows of her opposition..

 

[Ken King]

Wait she wants exculpatory evidence yet approved the process where lil' Adam gets to prevent exculpatory witnesses from testifying.

 

[Merlin99]

I think it'd be funny as hell when someone asks Trump a question and Schiff tells him he's not allowed to answer that.

 

[transporter]

“It’s called an inquiry,” Pelosi said on Thursday. “And if the president has something that is exculpatory, Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence, then he should make that known and that’s part of the inquiry. And so far, we haven’t seen that, but we welcome it. And that’s what an inquiry’s about.”

Pelosi then repeated that sentiment on Sunday in response to Brennan asking her, “Do you think you’ll go through all of this and not vote to impeach the President?”

“That remains – the facts, if the President has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this, which we haven’t seen,” Pelosi responded. “His transcript of a phone call is tucked away in a highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence server so we can’t see that. If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpa, blame, then we look forward to seeing it.”





https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelo...innocence-trump-needs-to-prove-he-is-innocent

Besides the actual transcript of the call...he could release all the notes and documents that have been requested...he could allow people in his administration to testify who have been subpoenaed...

Trump has made his determination...he won't cooperate....so don't bitch about the process.

BTW...an innocent man would put forth a defense...."the call was perfect"...is not a defense.

 

[This_person]

Besides the actual transcript of the call...he could release all the notes and documents that have been requested...he could allow people in his administration to testify who have been subpoenaed...

Trump has made his determination...he won't cooperate....so don't bitch about the process.

BTW...an innocent man would put forth a defense...."the call was perfect"...is not a defense.

So, you agree with Pelosi that it is on Trump to prove his innocence?

 

[PrchJrkr]

Sounds like someone doesn't understand our laws.

 

[Yooper]

“It’s called an inquiry,” Pelosi said.

"Inquiry" is the noun form of "to inquire." That means it's incumbent on Peolosi to ask; it isn't incumbent on Trump to volunteer. Either Pelosi needs to go back to school or this is intentionally Orwellian.

(a) Besides the actual transcript of the call...he could release all the notes and documents that have been requested...he could allow people in his administration to testify who have been subpoenaed...

(b) Trump has made his determination...he won't cooperate....so don't bitch about the process.

(c) BTW...an innocent man would put forth a defense...."the call was perfect"...is not a defense.

(a) He could, but he chooses not to. Good on him; it's how the tension between the Executive and the Legislative branches works.

(b) I don't think folks are bitching about the process. It's the Orwellian use of the term "inquiry" that's being bitched about.

(c) Self-denunciation much? Fan of show trials, I'm guessing? Or just #OrangemanBad?

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Stjohns3269]

So, you agree with Pelosi that it is on Trump to prove his innocence?

. The court has already ruled that impeachment hearings are not the same as criminal hearings and that the criminal standard does not apply. It is more vague however about what does apply and leaves all the facts to be presented , relevant witness to testify , documents to be submitted and each individualmember to vote on the criteria they choose. For this reason it would benefit Trump to prove his case and to present all relevant documents and facts that exonerate him. Without a robust defense he is setting him self up to get railroaded.

“
“In sum, the Senate has traditionally left the choice of the applicable standard of proof
to each individual Senator. While rejecting a motion to make the criminal standard the
standard in the Claiborne impeachment, the discussion made clear that it was simply a
decision to allow each member to make that choice and not a repudiation of the standard
itself. Individuals might apply that or any other standard of their choice. A walk through
history and an examination of the discussions of legal commentators may aid individuals
in weighing their choices, but provides no definitive answers. Indeed, such an exercise
is perhaps most useful in highlighting basic questions that members will want to ask
themselves when searching for the appropriate standard.”

STANDARD OF PROOF IN SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

congressionalresearch.com

 

[littlelady]

. The court has already ruled that impeachment hearings are not the same as criminal hearings and that the criminal standard does not apply. It is more vague however about what does apply and leaves all the facts to be presented , relevant witness to testify , documents to be submitted and each individualmember to vote on the criteria they choose. For this reason it would benefit Trump to prove his case and to present all relevant documents and facts that exonerate him. Without a robust defense he is setting him self up to get railroaded.

“
“In sum, the Senate has traditionally left the choice of the applicable standard of proof
to each individual Senator. While rejecting a motion to make the criminal standard the
standard in the Claiborne impeachment, the discussion made clear that it was simply a
decision to allow each member to make that choice and not a repudiation of the standard
itself. Individuals might apply that or any other standard of their choice. A walk through
history and an examination of the discussions of legal commentators may aid individuals
in weighing their choices, but provides no definitive answers. Indeed, such an exercise
is perhaps most useful in highlighting basic questions that members will want to ask
themselves when searching for the appropriate standard.”

STANDARD OF PROOF IN SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

congressionalresearch.com

Wow. I am impressed by your response if it is original. Nothing changes anything in the fact that Dems think they are in full control, and lie, cheat, and steal.

 

[Hijinx]

Why are they wasting time with all of this BS testimony by biased a-holes?.
Just vote for impeachment and get on with it. Nothing they have heard so far has proven anything .

IMO they are trying to string this thing out forever and a day hoping to convince the American voter that one of their 20 dingleberrys will make a better President than Trump. Aint gonna happen,

 

[vraiblonde]

. The court has already ruled that impeachment hearings are not the same as criminal hearings and that the criminal standard does not apply. It is more vague however about what does apply and leaves all the facts to be presented , relevant witness to testify , documents to be submitted and each individualmember to vote on the criteria they choose. For this reason it would benefit Trump to prove his case and to present all relevant documents and facts that exonerate him. Without a robust defense he is setting him self up to get railroaded.

I'm somewhat speechless at the bolded sentence.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty, and that means everyone. In this country someone can't lob an unfounded accusation at you and then make you prove your innocence. Trump's been calling this a witch hunt, and Nancy saying he must prove that accusations against him are untrue is exactly what they did in 17th century Salem.

I don't think you have to be madly in love with Trump to be alarmed by this. It's been a nonstop relentless attack on our 2016 election, attempting to remove the President that We the People elected. They failed to prove any Russian collusion, now they're failing to prove any malfeasance with Ukraine. And next week it will be something else. This isn't the way our government is supposed to work.

You seem sensible and reasonable, so I will appeal to that unless you show me different.

 

[Gilligan]

For this reason it would benefit Trump to prove his case and to present all relevant documents and facts that exonerate him.

That is downright scary to behold; never thought I would see such a chilling concept suggested as ever something we'd see in the USA.

"We know you are guilty of something. Prove to us that you are not"

Wow...just wow.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why are they wasting time with all of this BS testimony by biased a-holes?.
Just vote for impeachment and get on with it. Nothing they have heard so far has proven anything .

They won't vote for a couple of reasons:

1, there's nothing to vote on. They need to file formal impeachment charges and "NOKD" isn't good enough. Impeachment means nothing, and we learned that with Bill Clinton. It will go to the Senate and they will return a "not guilty" verdict, and that will be that.

2, they're fundraising off of this - both Republicans and Democrats. When it's over they'll have to come up with some other pandhandling scheme.

3, Schiff is enjoying the spotlight and once that vote is taken he goes back to obscurity.

4, they're trying to run out the clock to 2020 in hopes that Democrats take the Senate, which doesn't appear likely, and the threat of impeachment taints Trump so that his voters stay home. That's a big ass pipe dream and not gonna happen, though. If anything Trump voters are MORE motivated to give him a second term.

No doubt they're trying to figure out a graceful way out of the mess they made, but I think it's too late for that. They went way out on the trestle, now the train's coming, and they're gonna have to jump.

 

[Stjohns3269]

I'm somewhat speechless at the bolded sentence.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty, and that means everyone. In this country someone can't lob an unfounded accusation at you and then make you prove your innocence. Trump's been calling this a witch hunt, and Nancy saying he must prove that accusations against him are untrue is exactly what they did in 17th century Salem.

I don't think you have to be madly in love with Trump to be alarmed by this. It's been a nonstop relentless attack on our 2016 election, attempting to remove the President that We the People elected. They failed to prove any Russian collusion, now they're failing to prove any malfeasance with Ukraine. And next week it will be something else. This isn't the way our government is supposed to work.

You seem sensible and reasonable, so I will appeal to that unless you show me different.

If you go back and read the rest of the paragraph before the boldeline you will see what I was trying to say.
The rules for an impeachment are different from those of a criminal trial. There is not necessarily a presumption of innocence. It is up to each voting member what level of offense rises to impeachable.
The paragraph I quoted shows how the final decision is made. Since unlike a criminal trial something does not need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt it would make sense for Trump to provide as much evidence showing his innocence as possible. Simply stone walling won’t work as it will allow the democrats to control the narrative and leave the defense with nothing.

as I understand it from reading for the last few weeks is that an impeachment trial is more like a civil trial than a criminal one.
A criminal trial requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what they allege occurred. A civil trial merely means they need to prove it was more likely than not.

Like OJ winning the criminal trial and losing the civil trial.

Sorry if I was unclear. The link should also provide more information on how a impeachment and criminal trial differ.
Sorry if I was unclear. The link should also provide more information on how a impeachment and criminal trial differ.

Trump also claimed Russia was a witch hunt but 6 of his closest associates are in jail now which is proof that crimes were committed. I know if I was being investigated the police wouldn’t find 6 of my closest friends guilty enough of crimes to put them on trial and have them jailed


we now have two more associates awaiting trial after being arrested trying to flee the country. And from what I have read Guliani and Sondland are most likely headed to jail next which leads me to believe there is something to this as well.

 

[Gilligan]

....evidence showing his innocence ....

What does "evidence" like that look like?

 

[PsyOps]

Besides the actual transcript of the call...he could release all the notes and documents that have been requested...he could allow people in his administration to testify who have been subpoenaed...

Trump has made his determination...he won't cooperate....so don't bitch about the process.

BTW...an innocent man would put forth a defense...."the call was perfect"...is not a defense.

Oh for crying out loud... you have made it clear that Trump could cure cancer and you'd still find a way to criticize it. No matter what would come out of Trump and his admin, you'd accuse them of lying.

BTW... an innocent man doesn't have to prove he's innocent. The accusers have to prove he's guilty. Well, except in your little communist world.

 

[vraiblonde]

Trump also claimed Russia was a witch hunt but 6 of his closest associates are in jail now which is proof that crimes were committed.

Tax cheats whose crimes had nothing to do with Trump. Those are not normally investigated by Congress; typically they are regular law enforcement issues.

The rules for an impeachment are different from those of a criminal trial. There is not necessarily a presumption of innocence. It is up to each voting member what level of offense rises to impeachable.

Don't you think that's ridiculous and a colossal waste of time and money? That's a real question. Is chasing after the President and trying to find something to nail him with what we elected these people to do? Do you personally approve of them engaging in this activity?

The biggest bombshell for me to come out of the Ukraine hearings has been that we sent them $391 million of our tax dollars, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Think what that money could do for low income Americans. They could have a decent place to live, send their kids to college, use it for health care. Instead we gave it to a foreign country that appears to have used it to line the pockets of their fat cats. I don't know about you, but I don't want my tax dollars going toward giving rich people more chit when we have our own going without.

 

[Gilligan]

Tax cheats whose crimes had nothing to do with Trump.

That niggling detail is always left out of any lefty narrative.

 

[Stjohns3269]

Tax cheats whose crimes had nothing to do with Trump. Those are not normally investigated by Congress; typically they are regular law enforcement issues.

Don't you think that's ridiculous and a colossal waste of time and money? That's a real question. Is chasing after the President and trying to find something to nail him with what we elected these people to do? Do you personally approve of them engaging in this activity?

The biggest bombshell for me to come out of the Ukraine hearings has been that we sent them $391 million of our tax dollars, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Think what that money could do for low income Americans. They could have a decent place to live, send their kids to college, use it for health care. Instead we gave it to a foreign country that appears to have used it to line the pockets of their fat cats. I don't know about you, but I don't want my tax dollars going toward giving rich people more chit when we have our own going without.

As to you first point. I went back and edited my last response but I’m not sure you saw it.
If I was to be Investigated and they started asking questions of my friends and family I know for a fact six of my closest friends and business partners wouldn’t end up in jail. That is too high a ratio for me to accept Trump was unaware of what was going on. You may say that is biased but I believe you are the company you keep. I could see one or two slipping by but six. With two more in custody and Guliani most likely next. And Sondland perjuring himself after having paid a $1 million for his ambassadorship isn’t fare behind . It is all to much for me to believe it is just coincidence.

Secondly yes it makes me mad that so much time and money is being spent on this. However the converse of that is if Trump had acted more in line with typical conventions perhaps we wouldn’t be here. I know many like him because of his straight forward approach but in government you need to cross your Ts and dot your i’s and do things by the book. It’s clear Trump wasn’t a political animal and either didn’t know how to Act within the confines of government conventions and that made him popular but also gets him in trouble.

The wasted time is a separate issue. From what I have seen Mcconell has completely refused to take up over 300 bills that the house has put forward. It seems to me he is being obstructionist will the house continues to do its work

As to the aid for Ukraine I believe we have a vested interest in working with other countries. I don’t see why aid is a bad thing on its own. . Perhaps we should ask for more oversight as to how it is spent once received but that’s no different than getting mad at the pentagon for buying a $75k toilet. Governments are Inherently bad at spending money wisely.