She posted this:
The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.
The part about “everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence” seems just mind-numbingly stupid. But she is widely regarded as a very savvy politician.
So what’s behind this? What is she trying to accomplish here?
What’s stupid about it?
Presumably, how the statement flies in the face of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
The prosecutors are trying to prove guilt, but I guarantee the defendants are trying to prove innocence.
Meh - it was just a verbal fumble.
The court is supposed to believe innocent until proven guilty. There are no such restrictions on the peanut gallery.
She can say any stupid thing she wants now in order to draw MAGA contempt, shes not running for anything anymore.
Sounds like she goofed. When she starts talking about “so-called judges” I’ll raise an eyebrow.
Yep, she was imprecise. Hardly an impeachable offense. At least she got the “no one is above the law” part right, unlike about half of her colleagues.
No, the defense has no obligation to “prove innocence”, or indeed, to prove anything. Their only goal is to produce reasonable doubt in one or more elements of the case of the prosecution such that the jury does not conclude that the prosecution has adequately demonstrated culpability.
Pelosi is showboating for attention, and didn’t bother to think through her words before issuing a statement. There is no deeper meaning or intention.
Stranger
While I know you are technically correct, if I’m charged with something, I want to prove my innocence.
So was OJ found to be innocent? Was that what he was going for? Of course not. Proving reasonable doubt is often as good as it gets. Trying to prove your innocence could wind you up in deeper trouble.
If charged with a crime I have a right to prove my innocence at trial. I don’t have to, but I do have that right. What is the problem with her statement?
Why is Pelosi being pilloried for what is at worst arguably a pedantic criticism of sloppy wording, but Trump gets a pass for claiming “complete and total exoneration” in the Mueller report, which was an outright lie, and in the Georgia grand jury report, which was also an outright lie? Why is Pelosi being criticized for a statement that might possibly be subject to misinterpretation when Trump blatantly and outrageously lies every single time he opens his pie-hole?
IANAL, but I don’t think proving innocence is the goal. A person is found either guilty or not guilty, and the latter is not synonymous with innocent.
Many people are saying that she doesn’t understand the principle of the presumption of innocence. Many people. Saying.
The point that she is making is that Trump will have an opportunity to defend himself against the charges, he does not need to launch his fascist base to commit another round of terrorist attacks.
Because in her decades as a politician, this is one of the few soundbites that they can use against her. It’s one of those things where if you are communicating for hours every day, occasionally you have a gaffe, which everyone jumps on as if it is the only thing that you have ever said. They will accuse you of showboating for attention, even if that is an utterly ridiculous conclusion, as the attention that she is getting is that of the right wing media repeating her statement over and over and over again to their brainwashed followers.
OTOH, every single thing that Trump says is a lie, and we apparently don’t have time to criticize any of that, since we are so busy dogpiling her for her slip up.
If she plainly said that, I would actually have some respect and admiration her forthrightness in actually pointing out what virtually nobody seems to be willing to say. Instead, she’s just kind of a performative mannequin who does politic-y things because she’s the very definition of a career politician who doesn’t want to disrupt the status quo.
Stranger
So she made a verbal slip. That’s all it was. If you make enough public statements every now and then you’ll make a misstatement.
TBF, it was a written statement, not a verbal gaffe.
But the point stands that anyone making any more of this than that she made an minor pedantic error is trying to score some sort of political points, and is more interested in that then what she actually said.
She’s not speaker anymore, she’s not even minority leader. Why anyone spends more than the three seconds it takes to read the statement and move on baffles me.