EmilyD

Yep....guilty until proven innocent - it's the Democrat way...but only with Trump and Republicans, it seems.

This woman has no business being Speaker of the House if this is how she feels (and this is not hearsay, there's a video to show that she actually said Trump must prove his own innocence:

“'If the President has something that’s 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. So far we haven’t seen that.' Wow, that takes some kind of nerve to actually say all that with a straight face given the witch hunt they’ve been trying to push on the American people.

First, how nasty and condescending to think she can tell Trump what “exculpatory” means after pushing the Russia hoax against him for the past three years.

But at what point is it the responsibility of Trump to prove his innocence, to provide exculpatory evidence? Perhaps the Speaker forgets that one is innocent until proven guilty? That it’s the Democrats who have to prove guilt here, not Trump prove his innocence. Of course, that says a lot about how they intend simply to deem him guilty and completely ignore all standards.

What utter gall, given that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has literally denied the President the right to counsel at hearings, the right to transcripts of those hearings and the right to cross-examine witnesses. They’ve been denying him due process right down the line. They’ve even denied him a proper allegation to answer, opening hearings without even putting forwards any specific facts or an impeachable charge, as they cast around trying to find something. The “resolution” they voted on isn’t an inquiry into any specific charge, it’s a vote on rules that continue to deny Trump and the GOP rights and allow an open-ended investigation under the rule of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

To say that “we haven’t seen” any exculpatory evidence is a gross distortion of reality. And indeed, in a criminal trial, the prosecution would be required to put forth any exculpatory evidence of which they were aware, they couldn’t lie about it and say they “hadn’t seen it” as Pelosi does here. Ukrainian officials including President Volodymyr Zelensky have said there was no pressure placed on them and there was no quid pro quo, no requests of investigations of Bidens in exchange for aid. For most Americans, it looks pretty darn exculpatory when the people the Democrats are claiming are the victims say there was no such crime.

Then there’s the transcript of the call that Democrats keep trying to dismiss. It doesn’t actually support what their claim. The only reference in the transcript to the Bidens is Trump asking to check if the investigation against Burisma was properly closed, a perfectly valid check on corruption. Not to “dig up dirt” on Joe Biden. And the “do us a favor” pertains to investigations as to what happened to the DNC server in 2016. That had nothing to do with Biden.

As George Kent testified there were over the years a lot of legitimate questions about Burisma from U.S. officials and it was in the interests of the United States to determine if indeed the case against Burisma was properly closed. Indeed Kent said that he thought Burisma should be investigated to determine that there wasn’t any corruption in closing the case against them. Kent also noted he had concerns about the appearance of a conflict with Hunter Biden on the board and he apprised Vice President Joe Biden’s office of his concerns. That would support President Trump’s point that there were legitimate corruption concerns.

But Pelosi isn’t letting truth or standards get in her way."

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/14/pelosi-turns-justice-on-its-head-suggests-the-president-has-to-prove-his-innocence/

teabag09

She's in over her head and knows it so throw confusion into the mix. She knows the fake news will run with it and draw attention away from how miserably her team is doing with the impeachment procedure. In other words, She's up a watery shits creek with only a straw and a hole in the canoe. Suck it out or drown. Mike

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

She's correct...

If he has anything exculpatory he should show it... That's just common sense...

If a man's on trial for a crime, any crime, and he has evidence that supports his innocence, he should provide that evidence.

EmilyD

What can be more exculpatory than his transcripts, which we know he did provide, of his call with Zelenski, and Zelenski saying he was not pressured? And why does he have to come up with reasons that he is innocent without being charged? Innocent of WHAT?

Liberty Tree

That would be true in a fair justice system, but there's nothing he could present in his defense the Democrats would accept.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

He doesn't need to come up with reasons.. But if he has them he should release them...

She wasn't demanding... She was making a point...

It's pretty normal for a suspect to provide evidence of innocence so as to avoid going to court....

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Agreed... But of he has it, he should use it...

Radiance3

===============
The radical DEMS, Peglosi and Schitt run out of evidence against the president. All of them did not get any weight to consider credible.

They now require the accused, president Trump to prove his case.
In the court of law, the accuser must provide evidence to prove the guilt of the person they are accusing of. Peglosi and Schitt must bear the burden of proof. Are they so stupid to figure that out?

bilordinary Loc: SW Washington

What crime, you should answer this question before further comment!

EmilyD

Yes, but if he doesn't know what he is being charged with, (other than holding back military aid to Ukraine, which he DID provide exculpatory evidence), how can he provide evidence to prove his innocence?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

They are not in court...

If an individual has an alibi that exculpates him, then he should provide it before going to court...

bilordinary Loc: SW Washington

I don't know what I did but I didn't do it! So there!

DM

TO ALL: If this stupidity doesn't scare the living daylights out of everyone with someone so close to
the Presidency as this "looney tune Pelosi" nothing is going to. This nutcase is unbelievable in an
age of super intelligence in the world we live in and this goon ball is allowed to stand in front of a mic
and say such utterly stupid things. The world will never live this craziness down about this "Deep State"
and the hateful and mean and cruel things one former President has done to his successor. Of course, Old
Obama, the "Audacity Of Hope Clown" whose aim was to "fundamentally change the US, did a
magnificent job and ruined a nation that only had a few nutcases for Presidents and one sexual deviate but Obama took the cake! He must be so proud of himself to BE the disgusting part of a nation that for the most part the decent people believed in the Constitution and decency of EVERY individual that lived in
our great nation. With him came the gay agenda and all forms of indecency that for the most part
this nation WAS indeed a nation UNDER GOD. He removed all that and with it and no respect for law
and order. His "winking" at protestors spurred on the hate that we see displayed with businesses being
destroyed. No skin of his back...he loves it. His State of Illinois is one of the worst states with nothing good about it, thanks to him.
Keep in mind what the ballot box is all about. It can change our country so fast to become a real
disaster. Keep America Safe and re-elect Donald Trump if you care anything about your children
and what their life will be. The tyranny we watch on TV, the last few days will show you what a
few elected people can do. God help us and pray for a nation that needs God more now than ever.
Obviously, no individual with any intelligence would vote for a Socialist candidate as evidenced by
the Democratic candidates. Some of the "squad" left their Socialist countries and are merely here
to spread their hate. If you haven't figured that out, I feel very sorry for you.

Radiance3

============
Are you teasing me? Don't get confused with that.
I was not talking about the justices in the court hearing.
This is a hearing at the Congress, and all those things applied in the Court of the Justices bear the same burden of proof with the trial in Congress. There is one objective here to find the accused guilty so as to justify their impeachment. The accuser must always bear the burden of proof. Burden of proof means the evidence that will support their accusations against the president of impeachable crimes.

In his case none. Not one case presented was credible.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

The President still retains executive privilege. The lynch mob progressive Congress is conducting an old Soviets style trial and they're assuming that their oversight responsibilities usurps the power and authority of the presidency. It doesn't! If the power of impeachment and conviction were relegated solely to the House of Representatives they would have found reason to lynch him within the first six months. Our Republic is tottering due to the Progressives continuous lawlessness in their quest to fundamentally change America. True American patriots must never trust them! There can be no compromise with them because every time we do they gain and we lose. To compromise with progressives is to commit incremental suicide.