Guilty Because We Said So! …May Work!

The_Jury_by_John_Morgan.jpg?profile=RESIZE_400x(PatriotHQ) Pelosi said Trump, like "everyone else," can "Prove Innocence."

Not so fast! Before conservative’s write-off old senile Nancy and her idiot comment a closer look must be taken!

Understand, the US Constitution does not declare Innocent until proven guilty!

Here are the facts:

The presumption of innocence protects in many ways, including making sure the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • 5th Amendment: defendant can't be forced to testify against themself.
  • Right to be quiet under the 5th Amendment.
  • Right to a lawyer under the 6th Amendment.
  • The 8th Amendment says bail can't be too high.
  • The right not to be held without a good reason.

How did the saying "guilty until proven innocent" get started?

Most people think the phrase "guilty until proven innocent" is in the U.S. Constitution, but it is not. But the idea does come from the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, which protect people's rights to due process.

The burden of proof is a legal rule which says who must prove their case is right. "Innocent until proven guilty" means it is up to the prosecution to prove someone is guilty.

For a defendant to be convicted, the prosecution must show the court they are guilty of the crime they are being accused of.

The lack of evidence the defendant is guilty is not enough to clear him or her.

American law but not the US Constitution says everyone is innocent until proven guilty in court, but Rep. Nancy Pelosi has turned this around by saying former President Donald Trump, like "everyone," has the right to prove himself innocent.

The former speaker of the House wrote on her Twitter account Thursday night the grand jury had acted based on the facts and the law. She was talking about Trump's legal battle. "No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove their innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system gives him right."

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee pushed back against Pelosi on Thursday, reminding her of how the law works in the U.S.

They wrote on their House Judiciary GOP Twitter account, "NOT HOW IT WORKS." "In America, you don't "prove innocence." You're innocent until proven guilty. The FORMER Speaker should know." But are all these ’experts’ unaware of Pelosi’s real meaning of her statement?

The rule of law in the US assumes a defendant is innocent, and the prosecution must prove guilt for a conviction."

In conclusion. While the statement of ‘Innocent until proved guilty” is not stated in the US Constitution it stems from the contents of the Constitution and the practice of the rule of Law.

However, in today’s political climate the burden of proof is on the prosecution but if the Jury decides the evidence is enough for a conviction, then innocence be damned! This is why Trump is concerned about a jury which has already made up its mind and is looking for a way to pronounce it’s guilty decision in court no matter what the evidence says!  

If the enlightened and progressive Dems can cook a Presidential election on the scale and magnitude as done in 2020 then can they also cook up a tainted jury?

So, did Pelosi get it wrong or was she speaking of a decision stemming from a prejudicial jury?

Your opinion please…….

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –


  • President Donald J. Trump is innocent and he will prove this in court. A grand jury indicts but does not convict. Trump is the most honest and transparent president who ever occupied the White House. He will be back in the White House in January 2025. Then I'll clean house, probably declare martial law, and assume much needed total authority over the country until all communist and far left opposition is eradicated. Once again, he will make America great again, but this time it will stick. 



  • It is the prosecution's job to prove someone guilty, not for the accursed to prove his innocence.

    This switch comes from the warped communist mind of the sick, crazy minds of leftists, copying the communist ways where one is guilty until he proves his own innocence. It is a lot easier to PROVE someone's guilt based on evidence, than to produce evidence to prove someone's innocence. 

    • Yes, I agree. However, what I wrote is about Jury tampering which can be hard to prove. 

      If the enlightened and progressive Dems can cook a Presidential election on the scale and magnitude as done in 2020 then can they also cook up a tainted jury?

      Was Nancy referring to this or is she just a baffoon? 

    • How about both?


    • Yes, she is a baffoon, but if the left cooks the jury then this is a much bigger problem. 

    • Let's just hope and pray a "true, Constitutional" judge is appointed to oversee this case. OR President Trump's attorneys are able to obtain a change of venue.  I do not believe DJT can possibly receive a fair trial in NY. It would be even better if a presiding judge sees the case for what it is and dismisses it as frivolous and worthless.

This reply was deleted.