Nancy Pelosi Tweets that Trump can “prove his innocence”, proving she does not understand our legal system. You are innocent until proven guilty

[hadit]

Trump pleaded the fifth more than 400 times in fraud ...​

View attachment 771398
The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › us-news › jan › trump...

Jan 31, 2023 — Trump pleaded the fifth more than 400 times in fraud deposition, video shows ... Video released on Tuesday showed Donald Trump answering questions ...

And he had the right to do exactly that. And he still has the right to do it again.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Once again, after all that the jury will come back and say guilty or NOT guilty. They DO NOT pronounce anyone INNOCENT! Simplicity is obviously way over your head.

NOT guilty IS innocent, you stupid fuck.
DUH.

 

[OldFlame]

This PROVES the mindset of the left….YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT IF YOU ARE A POLITICAL ENEMY.

Well, she never graduated from any law school, Bachelor in Political Science is all I've ever heard about, and that was over 50 years ago. Yet she was qualified to be Speaker.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This is how the justice systems works for far left cult fucks.

They find a crime on you and you have to prove you are innocent…unless you are a political ally, then no charges will be brought.

It is a 2 tier system.

 

[Mac-7]

This PROVES the mindset of the left….YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT IF YOU ARE A POLITICAL ENEMY.

Nancy is a lib bitch, but she’s not that stupid

Unfortunately many Pelosi voters are that ignorant

 

[marvin martian]

NOT guilty IS innocent, you stupid fuck.
DUH.

No it's not, dipshit.

 

[Smokin' OP]

And he had the right to do exactly that. And he still has the right to do it again.

Yes, he does, to his own peril.

 

[Smokin' OP]

No it's not, dipshit.

So..........NOT guilty, but ................GUILTY?

 

[ColonelAngus]

She is spreading misinformation. Shouldnt the old bat be banned from Twitter?

She is lying about how the legal system works. She is a threat to our constitutional republic!

What if you did not do your own research and just listed to this skeleton with fake tits and teeth?

Elon should ban the bitch.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nit pickers gotta nit pick. Trump will have the chance to present his defence in court. Unfortunately for him, that defence will probably take the form of him trying to bully the judge.

 

[Synthaholic]

In this case, proving your innocence would mean showing why you valued a property high for insurance purposes while valuing the same property low for tax purposes.

You must show your reasons, proving your innocence, otherwise you will be convicted of tax fraud and insurance fraud.

The dumbass OP doesn't understand such complicated things.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Nancy is a lib bitch, but she’s not that stupid

Unfortunately many Pelosi voters are that ignorant

I am taking her at her words. I am not in her head. Are you calling NANCY PELOSI A LIAR?

Next you will me water is wet and fire is hot!

 

[DGS49]

While it certainly won't play out this way, Trump's defense could stipulate that every particular of the indictment is true...but it still doesn't amount to a cognizable crime. And they would win.

Someone please provide a quote from Ms. Pelosi that is not idiotic. I've never heard one.

 

[ColonelAngus]

NOT guilty IS innocent, you stupid fuck.
DUH.

No, it is not….dumbass.

Good Lord, read a fucking book. I LAID OUT THE CASE FOR YOU. TAYLOR V KENTUCKY.

See how fucking dumb the cult fucks are?

 

[ColonelAngus]

While it certainly won't play out this way, Trump's defense could stipulate that every particular of the indictment is true...but it still doesn't amount to a cognizable crime. And they would win.

Someone please provide a quote from Ms. Pelosi that is not idiotic. I've never heard one.

What concerns me is jury nulification.

This should be thrown out. It has ZERO MERIT.

We are OFFICIALLY A BANANA REPUBLIC.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This PROVES the mindset of the left….YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT IF YOU ARE A POLITICAL ENEMY.

Nazis are like that

 

[Paleman]

NOT guilty IS innocent, you stupid fuck.
DUH.

Go look in the mirror. That statement proves without a doubt that you are the stupid fuck. Not guilty only means that guilt cannot be proven beyond a doubt, it does not mean innocent, dumb ass.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Just amazing. According to the woman who was 3rd in line for POTUS…you must prove your innocence in court.

Yikes.

Just comical.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Go look in the mirror. That statement proves without a doubt that you are the stupid fuck. Not guilty only means that guilt cannot be proven beyond a doubt, it does not mean innocent, dumb ass.

Can you believe this shit? And that motherfucker claims WE are the dumb ones.

Scary if these fucks take 100% control of the US. They are close.

I bet if thhat asshole got arrested he would change his mind real quick on how our judicial system works.

 

[Smokin' OP]

No, it is not….dumbass.

Good Lord, read a fucking book. I LAID OUT THE CASE FOR YOU. TAYLOR V KENTUCKY.

See how fucking dumb the cult fucks are?

What a stupid teabagger, as if there are any other kind.
That didn't lay out..........anything, except, you're a dumbass.

U.S. Supreme Court​

Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (1978)Taylor v. Kentucky

No. 77-5549

Argued March 27, 1978

Decided May 30, 1978

436 U.S. 478


CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENTUCKY



Syllabus


At petitioner's Kentucky state robbery trial, which resulted in his conviction, the trial court instructed the jury as to the prosecutor's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt but refused, inter alia, petitioner's requested instruction on the presumption of innocence. The robbery victim was the prosecution's only witness, and petitioner was the sole defense witness. The prosecutor, in his opening statement, related the circumstances of petitioner's arrest and indictment. In his closing statement, the prosecutor made observations suggesting that petitioner's status as a defendant tended to establish his guilt. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, rejecting petitioner's argument that he was entitled to the requested instruction as a matter of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.


Held: On the facts, the trial court's refusal to give petitioner's requested instruction on the presumption of innocence resulted in a violation of his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126, distinguished. Pp. 436 U. S. 483-490.


(a) While the legal scholar may understand that the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden of proof are logically similar, the ordinary citizen may draw significant additional guidance from an instruction on the presumption of innocence. Pp. 436 U. S. 483-485.

​