What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Multiple cases will be running prior to the primaries next spring. They will not halt.

Where's a guy with a hammer when you need one?

So nobody can defend him and the best responses thus far are

he’s gonna win in 2024

george soros

violent obsession vs pelosi

Going to fly in all the Burkes to replace current legal team as soon as the rest of them get out of jail

Confirmation of the date and time folks

What he said..

That's hilarious. So are you trying to tell me that I didn't grow up hearing people say that? That I haven't said it myself? She didn't say that people have to prove their innocence at trial. She said everyone has a right to a trial to prove their innocence. The idea has been a common one in the US for about as long as the country has existed. If you have been publicly accused of a crime, you have the right to a trial to exonerate you. If the charges are dropped they can just be filed again later. However if you are found not guilty in court that's it. You can't be tried again, even if new evidence is found. Freedom from double jeopardy is one of the cornerstones of the US justice system.

Are far right mouthpieces doing their best to pretend that she meant something different? Sure, that's what they always do. They don't care about facts or the truth. All they care about is spin.

The Republican party has been an absolute cesspool since Regan's time. It's only gotten worse over the decades.

I have no idea where you grew up. I grew up in the US, in various places from coast to coast. Everywhere I lived in the US in the 50 years I lived there I've heard people express that concept, from Washington DC to California, and numerous points in between. I'll certainly admit that I don't recall hearing it since I moved to Ireland. I honestly don't know if the Irish legal system includes protection against double jeopardy.

Proving innocence via a trial has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal presumption of innocence in court. They are entirely separate things. Presumption of innocence is a legal concept, whereas proving innocence via a trial is about public perception.

I certainly agree that the legal presumption of innocence is vitally important, and that legal systems that don't include that are problematic at best. However proving innocence at a trial has nothing to do with that. It is the idea that a person who has been publicly accused of a crime, especially by government authorities, has a right to a trial to exonerate them. A right to have their accuser either prove their guilt in court or withdraw their accusation as publicly as they made it in the first place. Some people prefer to force a trial even if the government is willing to withdraw their accusation due to the concept in the US of double jeopardy. If you are tried for a crime and acquitted then you cannot be tried for that same crime again later.

Trump has been publicly accused of crimes. He has now been indicted for some of them. Pelosi's tweet was pointing out that at this point if he is as innocent as he claims the trial will prove that, and there isn't any need for him to exhort his followers to violence again.

Or both

Well those who believe that the two most important things in their lives are their guns and their Bible are probably easily triggered, if not stone mad!

"Proving innocence via a trial has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal presumption of innocence in court. They are entirely separate things. Presumption of innocence is a legal concept, whereas proving innocence via a trial is about public perception."

This is a dangerous fiction.

In being brought before a court, every accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. Further, being found "not guilty" is an affirmation of that innocence by a court in every Common law system bar Scotland where a "not proven" as an acquittal declaration can be issued.

What courts in US offer "innocent" as a verdict alternative to "not guilty"?

By your logic, an accused person could once a case is lain against them initiate an action in the criminal court with the Prosecutor as respondent and seek the criminal court to declare them innocent.

There is no such action possible so far as I am aware but I'll happily defer to an example.

To be clear, where a court returns a "not guilty" verdict that in and of itself is a vindication of an accused's innocence.

There is no further verdict or declaration of innocence to be gained in criminal court.

"Trump has been publicly accused of crimes. He has now been indicted for some of them. Pelosi's tweet was pointing out that at this point if he is as innocent as he claims the trial will prove that, and there isn't any need for him to exhort his followers to violence again."

Yes I agree that this is what Pelosi's thrust was. Yet her phrasing was poor.

The trial doesn't need to nor should even be implied to mean that Trump needs to prove his innocence.

He doesn't, he enjoys that presumption and as such unless found "Guilty" he is wholly innocent unless and until proven otherwise.

Pelosi's tweet frames the indictment as Trump needing to prove he is innocent.

Now I do believe he has criminal liability for a whole host of crimes.

In none of those likely indictments will Trump need to prove his innocence, nor will any court (Outside of Louisiana, and that's as I'm not familiar with Hybrid Law criminal declaration) issue a verdict of innocent.

TLDR: I agree with you, Trump needs to face the courts. I disagree with Pelosi's framing of any criminal action in terms of a need to prove innocence. Legally, he is until proven guilty.

A not guilty verdict is an affirmation of that innocence.