Pelosi Turns Justice on Its Head, Suggests the President Has to Prove His Innocence (Page 5): :sm08:...

EmilyD

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

EmilyD wrote:

You have stated WHAT several times?

what is agaithim???

Against him.. stupid autocorrect...

EmilyD

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Against him.. stupid autocorrect...

Oh, I thought it was another language attacking Trump. Don't blame me....it's very possible.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

EmilyD wrote:

Oh, I thought it was another language attacking Trump. Don't blame me....it's very possible.

No... I understand... I usually try to proof read my texts before I post... Sloppiness on my part...

EmilyD

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

No... I understand... I usually try to proof read my texts before I post... Sloppiness on my part...

It happens to the best of us

Singularity

EmilyD wrote:

So I'll clarify my question so you aren't so dumbfounded:

As the Trump supporter that you say you are, how do you clarify that you want him to provide proof of his innocence.

Innocence of what?

This situation arose because Trump and many of his supporters are complaining that at this stage in the process HE/THEY are being prevented from providing testimony or evidence of his own to counteract information provided in these hearings, just as he has already done with the so called transcript of the phone call. Ms. Pelosi is informing him that if he chooses to ignore the usually prudent warning regarding his right to remain silent, that he is perfectly welcome to present ANY MORE exculpatory evidence on his own. Numerous requests to question pertinent officials who should have first hand exculpatory knowledge, for mountains of written evidence, recordings and records have been completely stonewalled by someone in spite of the President's and his supporters' apparent protests.

Find out who that person is, and complain to/about them.

Leave Nancy and CD to explore their budding relationship.

rjoeholl

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

If he's not on trial then you have nothing to worry about...

As it is, the impeachment is proceeding... Not quite sure what you would call it... I for one hope that he uses everything he has to prove to the American people that he is not guilty of the accusations that have been leveled at him...

CD, it's impossible to prove a negative. That is why the onus of proof is on the accuser. However, there has to be a crime or there can be no accusation. So far we are waiting for a particular crime that the President is charged with.

EmilyD

rjoeholl wrote:

CD, it's impossible to prove a negative. That is why the onus of proof is on the accuser. However, there has to be a crime or there can be no accusation. So far we are waiting for a particular crime that the President is charged with.

Someone said they want exculpatory evidence. Boringly waiting for it...yawn...................................snoreprishbhrthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........see ya tomorrow.....

Big Kahuna

EmilyD wrote:

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/

Yep....guilty until proven innocent - it's the Dem... (show quote)

Yes, Nanny peeloosli should have to turn in evidence that she is fit to be Speaker as she is currently guilty of a witch hunt. The witch should have to prove that she is not a witch just as hitlery rotten clinton and chelsea should have to prove that also. Mooch ovommit should have to prove he/she is not a man. Adam schitt should have to prove he is not gorked out on illegal drugs and should be forced to take a blood and urine sample to prove his innocence. All demonrats should not be allowed to vote until they can prove that they are pro -Americans and not anti-Americans. All intelligence employees should have to prove that they are not subversives, wish to overthrow our government and believe the rule of law is for both republicans and demonrats. They are all guilty until proven innocent and should be prosecuted unless proof is offered.

Singularity

rjoeholl wrote:

CD, it's impossible to prove a negative. That is why the onus of proof is on the accuser. However, there has to be a crime or there can be no accusation. So far we are waiting for a particular crime that the President is charged with.

Though I'm not convinced this President is innocent it is entirely possible to accuse an innocent party of something. The proof of the pudding is in the removal from office

This is an impeachment inquiry. According to Senator Lindsay Graham, "There doesn't even have to be a crime. It's about cleansing the office."

Consider it as a Job Performance Review?

Speaker Pelosi on Face the Nation.
Check out at about 3 minutes into play.

I admire her and respect her office, but have trouble listening to her speak for too long, it makes my teeth feel wobbly. Just as listening to President Trump speak makes the back of my throat itch. Equal opportunity empath....
https://youtu.be/lN3m5cKnuSI

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

EmilyD wrote:

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?

About those transcripts...

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-falsely-claims-he-released-exact-transcription-of-ukraine-phone-call-amid-impeachment-inquiry/

Big Kahuna

Singularity wrote:

Though I'm not convinced this President is innocent it is entirely possible to accuse an innocent party of something. The proof of the pudding is in the removal from office

This is an impeachment inquiry. According to Senator Lindsay Graham, "There doesn't even have to be a crime. It's about cleansing the office."

Consider it as a Job Performance Review?

I'm not convinced that any demonrat is innocent. In fact all evidence currently points to their guilt!!!

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

Pennylynn wrote:

Discovery in law happens AFTER charges have been filed.

Investigation takes place between the actions and the charges. The committee is in the investigation stage

silvereagle

Emily, evidently not one demonic rat read Trumps transcript that he released.The truth stairs them right in their faces and they refuse to see it.Instead they speculate, then manipulate the speculation and make it true.They have lost their damn minds.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

silvereagle wrote:

Emily, evidently not one demonic rat read Trumps transcript that he released.The truth stairs them right in their faces and they refuse to see it.Instead they speculate, then manipulate the speculation and make it true.They have lost their damn minds.

The truth is, Silvereagle: There are variations in the numerous transcripts of the same phone call(s). They were, after, the White House's transcripts.

Note: Read the transcript's disclaimer in my link above.