The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the justice system in the United States. At least, it was.
The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is something every American has heard uttered throughout their lifetime. It is a legal principle that puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As with many fundamental norms in the justice system, Democrats eschew such basic rights when it comes to their political opponents.
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in responding to the indictment against Donald Trump, ripped that mask off and suggested the former President must now “prove innocence.”
“The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law,” Pelosi said in a statement.
“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.”
Read that again – Trump now has a “right to a trial to prove innocence.” That’s not how that works, you ignorant buffoon.
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.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) March 31, 2023
RELATED: President Donald Trump Indicted by Manhattan Grand Jury
Pelosi Statement on Trump Indictment Leads to Ridicule
Sometimes it’s difficult to even know where to begin when a dyed-in-the-wool liberal lunatic makes such a ridiculous comment.
Support Conservative Voices!
Sign up to receive the latest political news, insight, and commentary delivered directly to your inbox.
Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that, since Pelosi was roundly condemned on social media for her remarks about the Trump indictment.
Attorney Eric Matheny kicked things off by stating the very, very obvious.
“Defendants in America don’t prove their innocence,” he wrote.
Defendants in America don’t prove their innocence.
— Eric Matheny 🎙 (@EricMMatheny) March 31, 2023
Author Alex Berenson was torn between being impressed that an elderly woman is seemingly writing her own tweets and full-blown panic that the same woman, a lawmaker, “has no idea how the law works.”
Should we be worried the former Speaker of the House has no idea how the law works? Innocent until proven guilty, it’s a thing.
Or just happy she is tweeting for herself despite her advanced age? (No staffer would have made this mistake…) https://t.co/Q7mUKrEfwy
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) March 31, 2023
“The last time Americans had to ‘prove their innocence,’ we were governed by the British,” tweeted comedian Tim Young.
The last time Americans had to “prove their innocence,” we were governed by the British. https://t.co/srCeIaijRy
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) March 31, 2023
The political pundit known as the ‘Redheaded Libertarian’ spat fire at Pelosi in a smoking hot tweet.
“This is the most anti-American vomit that has ever exited your commie mouth,” she said.
I mean … maybe? Pelosi has a long and storied history with vomiting anti-American, pro-commie gibberish so, there’s that.
“Granted right”
“Prove your innocence”
This is the most anti-American vomit that has ever exited your commie mouth.
— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 31, 2023
Pelosi’s Tweet Gets a Fact Check
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s tweet about Trump needing to “prove innocence” in regard to the indictment was slapped with a Community Notes disclaimer by Twitter.
“Ms. Pelosi mistakenly says that Trump can prove his innocence at trial,” the added context reads. “Law in the US assumes the innocence of a defendant and the prosecution must prove guilt for a conviction.”
Twitter commentators know that basic fact. One of the most powerful Democrat lawmakers in the land? Not so much.
But where did anyone get the idea that Pelosi was “mistaken”?
This isn’t the first time prominent Democrats have struggled with the basic concept of the presumption of innocence.
Senator Cory Booker (D-Sparta), during the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggested he be replaced “whether he’s innocent or guilty” of fabricated sexual assault allegations.
Cory Booker: It doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “innocent or guilty” https://t.co/QojtccNRai pic.twitter.com/yNgF0d8PZE
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 2, 2018
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-Golden Corral) at around the same time said Kavanaugh is “not entitled to those (due process and the presumption of innocence).”
Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Fang Fang) claimed that when the former President’s White House opted not to play the impeachment game by refusing to send documents and witnesses to mount a defense against the televised circus, this was an admission of guilt.
“We can only conclude that you’re guilty,” Swalwell stated.
“In America, innocent men do not hide and conceal evidence,” he added. “They are forthcoming and they want to cooperate and the president is acting like a very guilty person right now.”
Sounds like Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell has decided to come out against the 5th Amendment.
Not to mention the whole idea someone is innocent until proven guilty… pic.twitter.com/Hh2OnX3JOH
— Tommy Pigott (@TommyPigott) December 17, 2019
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution enshrines the concept that someone is “innocent until proven guilty.”
The clause regarding self-incrimination was designed to prevent the accused from being forced to testify against themselves, leaving the burden of proving that a person has committed a crime to the government.
And Democrats across the board want to reverse that.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
Read this Next on ThePoliticalInsider.com
Study: States With Less Restrictive COVID Policies Outperformed Those With More Restrictions
Leave a Comment
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
Pelosi needs to prove her innocence at trisl because the world knows she is a corrupt insider trading treasonous criminal that should be stripped of her wealth and sent to gitmo.
you only have to prove innocence in CALIFORNICATIA. Everywhere else the STATE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF
where is our alleged DOJ? Impeach Biden and Garland
When are these dirty Dems going to be arrested and brought to justice for all their traitor doings? We have the worst, most underhanded and corrupt gov ever, all because of these dirty Dem’s. That whole party needs to be brought to it’s knee’s and destroyed. There is not one that has an ounce of honesty or integrate. Run and controlled by a brat with temper tantrums, all guilty for decades of underhanded lies and cheating. When does it stop??!
Hmmmm, I think it’s the other way around Nancy.. innocent until proven guilty.. I would think you would’ve learned that much as long as you’ve been in government
If this isn’t thrown out on the first appeal to dismiss would be a total miscarriage of true justice under the law.
I do believe Nasty Nancy Pelosi is on the verge of entering a gun store and buying herself several “ASSAULT” weapons….I think her fear of an inadequate evidence to create more moot problems for President Trump, her obsessive paper shredding fear could force her into a state of anaphylactic brought on by overindulgence of chocolate, stressed to the symptoms of skin color change…..Who knows what evil lies within the mind of Nasty Nancy Pee????…Da Shadow do…..
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it has always been ” Guilty, until you prove your Innocent ” The legal system has always been you get arrested on a suspicion or accusation, you sit in Jail, no matter if your guilty or Innocent, until you or someone you know. Pays a fee to get you out , ( If you have to use a bondsman. they charge a nonrefundable fee, you don’t get back, Innocent or guilty ) Then if you can afford one. You pay a attorney to prove your Innocent in court. If you can not afford the Attorney, one will be appointed for you from the Public Defender office which is State paid for by the State ! So now you have a Public Pretender to defend you, defending you against those that sign their paychecks, while they also work hundreds ( in some cases ) of other cases also. Unless you have witnesses ( if you can afford to pay to subpoena them ) or documents proving your Innocent, the state has already won, it’s your word against theirs and the Police, who’s the jury going to side with? So again I’ve delt with the legal system since I was a teen ( Car accidents. And a couple of times for things that were impossible for me to do ) I was even arrested by a cop ( who we later found out was trying to get a date with.my Married sister ) for Burglary, because I had just left work and my tools were in the back seat, he also accused me or Spinning my tires, while running a red light. at 160 mph ( My car was a 1966 Belair with a 250hp 6 cylinder engine ) again I had to prove my innocence. Good luck Trump. You’ll be facing a mostly Demonrat jury, with a Demonrat Prosecuter, in front of a Demonrat Judge, all over a case that the Statute of limitations ran out slmost 5 years ago. Your F4,×%,ed
Sometimes it’s difficult to even know where to begin when a dyed-in-the-wool liberal lunatic makes such a ridiculous comment….
Lunatic yes…ridiculous, absolutely…but “liberal, no way…this deranged hag is a dyed-in-the-wool communist, with fascist leanings…as IL-liberal as one can get…and a vile, loathsome liar to boot.
I suppose we should all be grateful she allows the rest of us to live in her USA.
The Democratic-communist party has just had the trial, found the defendant guilty, and now will proceed with the sentencing.