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

What point do you think I'm making?

Pelosi's 2nd sentence in the tweet, that phrase you have said is very common, fair enough.

That is the sentence that Trumper's are latching on to. It implies that Trump must prove his innocence. That without exculpation, that the charges listed in the indictment are all fait accompli.

They aren't, Pelosi's words are being twisted to present the NY indictment as being a furtherance of a political hit job on Trump and that the verdict is already in.

Now I do note that you say that particular phrase is common parlance in US but not here. It's astonishing how rare it is online in the form Pelosi used. A form that places the burden of proof upon the accused, versus the far more common formula of,

@banie01

The fire will burn either way, independently of Pelosi's comments. The only difference is that Pelosi may want to beef up her security detail for at least the next 18 months.

The thing is the two quotes you mention don't have anything to do with each other. They aren't different versions of the same thing. The idea that someone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct that talks about how how the justice system should work. On the other hand the idea that everyone should have the right of going to trial when they have been accused of a crime so that their innocence can be proven in court is about public perception of someone who has been publicly accused of a crime.

Yes, someone should always be assumed to be innocent until it has been proven that they are guilty. However public perception generally doesn't work that way. And pretending that it does just because that is how the justice system is designed in naive. Another way it is phrased is that everyone deserves their day in court. Which means exactly the same thing.

And no, her tweet doesn't imply that the charges are all fait accompli. Quite the opposite. If he isn't innocent then a trial is unlikely to prove that he is. She is well aware that a lot of people assume that he is guilty. I certainly do. So she offered up that the trial would be his opportunity to prove us wrong. And more importantly hoped that he wouldn't incite his followers to riot again. You know, since the last time he did that she had armed men running around inside her place of work screaming about how they wanted to find and kill her.

I saw the tweet before I ever saw any of the far right types trying to twist its meaning. I thought she was being exceptionally polite to a man that has never been anything but vile to her. It wouldn't ever have occurred to me that telling someone that everyone has the right to a trial to prove their innocence could ever be misinterpreted as saying that he was presumed guilty and would have to prove otherwise in court. To me that would be like hearing someone say "Have a nice trip" to someone going on holiday, and that being interpreted as them hoping that the person will trip over something and injure themselves. It just doesn't make any sense.

It makes much more sense to accept that she was just saying that if he is innocent the trial will prove it to everyone. Rather than assuming that somehow she doesn't understand how the burden of proof works in the justice system of the US. She's been a member of the House of Representatives since 1987. She isn't a lawyer, but she has been around the law for a very long time.

The burden of proof is never upon the accused in a court. But at the end of a case if the accused is found innocent, they will still have proven their innocence. All of this is just another Trumpcult storm in a teacup over absolutely nothing. Funny how they're so concerned over phraseology and terminology all of a sudden.

The admission might be new but I always thought it was common knowledge that a deal was done.

I literally said that in my post, twice.

But thanks for the confirmation 😉👍

Neither Pelosi nor anyone else is saying that the accused "needs" to prove their innocence. However, the fact still remains that once a trial has ended and the plaintiff has failed to make the charges stick, as it were, then the accused has proven their innocence in the case, which is all that Pelosi has said. They will have been "vindicated", as you say, which literally means "proof that someone or something is right", according to the OED.

As for evidence being offered, all parties being evidence to a trial. It would be foolish in the extreme for one's council to bring zero evidence to defend their client in the hope that they could merely count on breaking the court's case that's levelled against them without it. You can bet your bottom dollar that Trump's lawyers have been furiously building a defence in order to "prove" their client's innocence.

There's nothing wrong with what Pelosi has said or in the way that she phrased things. What is wrong, however, is that certain quarters want to make people think she means something that she didn't actually say.

No, you're not the certain quarters. But you know who are. It's the same type that will try and twist anything to pull the wool over others eyes in an effort to deflect from more pressing matters.

As for troublesome, I see nothing whatsoever that's troublesome in what Pelosi said. But, as I've mentioned, what's actually troublesome is the fact that certain quarters (not you) that have already proven their bad faith time and time again have tried to engage in twisting someone's words in order to protect their cult leader.

In any case, this will all be forgotten by tomorrow and what Pelosi said won't mean a tinkers cuss to anyone.

Thanks for that at least Tony😉

Look, to rational people? Pelosi's tweet doesn't matter a fúck. The problem is the irrational folk, the Trumper's who hold the constitution dear.

It's not just the appointed judges that take literalist/teleological views of anything said contrary to their Orange messiah.

These folk put the same effort into spinning out Pelosi's tweet as Alito did when he cited Matthew Hale in the judgement that struck down Roe V Wade.

I know my point on what Pelosi is pedantic, in a sane world everyone would grasp her point.

The thing is that we are dealing with folk who are comfortable twisting a narrative to suit their vision of the world and their persecution.

The phrasing Nancy used was a gift on that front. They only need to recite the 2nd sentence and ignore the context to have Trump be the victim. Sane and rational folk know what was meant, my boring near treatise on different burden is more to highlight why and how that thread will be pulled, than it is a criticism of Pelosi or god forbid support for the local hotel owner in legal jeopardy in NY 🤷‍♀️