The reaction to the unprecedented indictment of President Trump was predictable.
The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2013 until his dismissal in May 2017 reacted to the news with delight
https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1641634399048413184
There were many others who had similiar reactions
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law.
So
let’s look at the facts first.
President
Trump has denied the affair with Stormy Daniel. In a 2018
letter that surfaced recently, Daniel also
denied that the affair ever occurred, despite claiming otherwise in public.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1639007162818080768
Another
2018
letter proves that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign
was a party to the transaction. Also, Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen
reimbursed for the payment by any organizations affiliated to Trump
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1638659011028434947?s=20
Since
the transaction didn’t occur at Trump’s behest the case has no basis.
Even
if Trump had directed Cohen to make hush payments and the Trump
Organization had reimbursed him for the payment to Daniels but billed them as legal expenses, it would constitute
a misdemeanor for which the statute of limitations for that has run out
for that.
Back Pelosi’s Tweet
Pelosi wrote
“No
one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.”
This is nothing short of a shocking statment.
The
presumption of innocence is the legal standard in any civilized democracy - anyone accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.
The
legal burden of proof lies on the prosecution, which must present compelling face-based evidence to before a judge or a jury. The prosecution must prove that the
accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the
accused must be acquitted.
The
presumption of innocence is also an international human right under the UN's
Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 11.
This is the legal
standard in the US specifically the text states the following:
“It
is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a
crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is
established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality.
It is a matter of the most important substance.
The
presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt
and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The defendant before you,
[__________], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you
are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of
[his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The
presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is
always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime
with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not
require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond
a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden never shifts to
[defendant]. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements
of the crime[s] charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Defendant] has the right
to rely upon the failure or inability of the government to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged against [him/her].
If,
after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a
reasonable doubt as to [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, it is your
duty to acquit [him/her] of that crime. On the other hand, if, after fair and
impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt of [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, you should vote
to convict [him/her].”
https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1641594971462541315
Thankfully
Elon Musk’s Twitter flagged Pelosi’s Tweet and
So are
there any countries where the accused is guilty until proven innocent?
They
are mostly third-world countries or theocratic or military dictatorships where the might of the law is used to
target opponents and dissidents. Irrespective of what their contitution says, dissidents are presumed guity until proven innocent. This is how the law operated in Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy
It is not just President Trump.
Some of the January
6th protestors held in the District of Columbia jail have complained of being subjected to inhumane conditions.
This
remains the goal behind the exercise, to not only punish the protestors but to
make their process the punishment, to drag the trial along, and to drain all their
resources and spirits.
The
constant delays in hearings and postponements dragged out for over a year
caused so much trauma to one of the accused that he committed
suicide.
If
there had to be any punishment for these protestors they should have received
small fines and community service.
The
likes of Pelosi want to turn the US into a third-world dictatorship where the
arms of government particularly law enforcement and the judiciary are used to
target opponents and outlaw political opposition.
The
ball is now in the court of the Republicans in D.C. and the citizens all over
the nation.
In
perilous times, there is no greater sin than inaction.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment