Trump Presidency

[Cackalacky2.0]

Defense doesn't have to prove shit. They have to just raise reasonable doubt. A defense lawyer can get a not guilty decision by not calling a single witness, even the defendant, but simply poke holes at the prosecutions case. They aren't proving squat. Please use Google. I'm begging you.

Please post them pointing out the areas where a defendant must prove themselves innocent in order to get a not guilty verdict.

Nobody.... .and I mean nobody ..... is agreeing with your insanely stupid take on this.

https://www.deatonlaw.net/prove-your-innocence-if-you-have-been-charged-with-crime/

Falsely Accused: How to Prove Your Innocence

Falsely accused of a crime? Here are some steps that can be taken to prove your innocence in court. Call the experienced Utah criminal defense lawyer.

wasatchdefenselawyers.com

Proving Innocence

Proving Innocence | Hilliard Law

Hilliard Law fights for the innocent, freeing those wrongfully accused or convicted. Trusted nationwide for taking on complex cases against corporate giants. Call us today!

hmglawfirm.com

This is literally on the first four returns lmao. 🤡

 

[NorthDakota]

Thoughts on those rushing to the defense, ham sandwich defense, comparisons to Clinton, claims that Biden is a pedophile? How about their perspective? Interesting Cack has lost all perspective yet Bobby has made some all timer statements and we've seen the ham sandwich defense go unchallenged.

I mean, Biden's daughter's (alleged) journal says she showered at night as a method of ensuring he didn't join her...whether that's real or not, I have no idea.

But yes, the joke is you can indict a ham sandwich.

And yes, Cack has lost all perspective of the world. A simple review of the accounts he amplifies, and his dying on the hill of "a defendant must prove their innocence" is all that is needed to see that.

 

[TorontoGold]

When is Toronto ever going to call out Cack or GoIrish41? Shockingly, that never happens.

Because I don't purport to be above the fray. I am very obviously biased and I hold similar positions to them. I don't disagree with their "behavior". You've made multiple comments on how Cack or others "conduct" themselves, yet no comment on Bishop calling unnamed people "betas" etc. Cack and GI41 regularly support their positions with some sort of support, Bishop is just incapable of doing that and I will continue to call him out for not being able to do that.

If Cack and GI41 were to start trumpeting themselves as these great beacons of intelligence without providing any substance and regularly tout their superiority over others you have my word that I'll be there to call them out.

If you look at recent posts I don't initiate the personal insults, they come to me and I will respond accordingly. Just please please stop commenting on his posting style as if it's any worse than how others do it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Does anyone want to back Cack up on this one? Step right up.

I can’t help that you can’t understand what a defense has to do to win cases against prosecutions in todays court. I have already said that in theory yes everyone is innocent until proven guilty but innocent people are also charges with crimes and have to prove they didn’t do it in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[ab2cmiller]

https://www.deatonlaw.net/prove-your-innocence-if-you-have-been-charged-with-crime/

Falsely Accused: How to Prove Your Innocence

Falsely accused of a crime? Here are some steps that can be taken to prove your innocence in court. Call the experienced Utah criminal defense lawyer.

wasatchdefenselawyers.com

Proving Innocence

Proving Innocence | Hilliard Law

Hilliard Law fights for the innocent, freeing those wrongfully accused or convicted. Trusted nationwide for taking on complex cases against corporate giants. Call us today!

hmglawfirm.com

This is literally on the first four returns lmao. 🤡

Do you have a rational bone in your body? Any logic whatsoever? You CAN be found Not Guilty because you PROVED your innocence. You have NO REQUIREMENT to prove your innocence in any way to be found NOT GUILTY.

 

[NorthDakota]

https://www.deatonlaw.net/prove-your-innocence-if-you-have-been-charged-with-crime/

Falsely Accused: How to Prove Your Innocence

Falsely accused of a crime? Here are some steps that can be taken to prove your innocence in court. Call the experienced Utah criminal defense lawyer.

wasatchdefenselawyers.com

Proving Innocence

Proving Innocence | Hilliard Law

Hilliard Law fights for the innocent, freeing those wrongfully accused or convicted. Trusted nationwide for taking on complex cases against corporate giants. Call us today!

hmglawfirm.com

This is literally on the first four returns lmao. 🤡

At this point, he's trolling you guys.

 

[TorontoGold]

I mean, Biden's daughter's (alleged) journal says she showered at night as a method of ensuring he didn't join her...whether that's real or not, I have no idea.

But yes, the joke is you can indict a ham sandwich.

And yes, Cack has lost all perspective of the world. A simple review of the accounts he amplifies, and his dying on the hill of "a defendant must prove their innocence" is all that is needed to see that.

Yeah Biden is obviously a dirtbag, but I mean, would the same people who are calling him a pedophile do the same with Trump making statements about how he would date her if she wasn't his daughter? Probably not.

Right but a ham sandwich (ie a regular joe) doesn't get indicted for the same things he's likely going to be indicted on. If it was something innocuous that anyone could get charged with then sure ham sandwich stuff applies.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Do you have a rational bone in your body? Any logic whatsoever? You CAN be found Not Guilty because you PROVED your innocence. You have NO REQUIREMENT to prove your innocence in any way to be found NOT GUILTY.

Why won’t you just admit that it’s semantics and that a criminal defense attorney has one job and that is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their client is innocent. In our legal system you have to generate reasonable doubt. You will not do that doing nothing. You have to do work. You have to prove there is a reason to doubt whether though evidence or disassembling the prosecutions evidence. Crazy stuff I know. Haha

I gave you four returns for actual criminal lawyers who acknowledge what I m saying is an actual reality of the legal system you love so much such that they actually have landing places on the websites discussing the actual need for it.

Sure you can hire a lawyer who does nothing at all. No cross. No evidentiary dismantlement. Just sits there and does nothing while the prosecution does everything. How well does that work? Maybe you can rep yourself? For sure that’s the way to show your innocence. Lol.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Why won’t you just admit that it’s semantics and that a criminal defense attorney has one job and that is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their client is innocent.

It's not anywhere close to semantics. This is fundamental to our legal system. It's absolute basic stuff that you would learn in middle school.

 

[NorthDakota]

Does anyone want to back Cack up on this one? Step right up.

They don't, and no lawyer will because that's not what the law is. Having an alibi or rebutting the prosecution's evidence goes a long way but is not required and never will be.

It remains the case at the state and federal level that the defense can (and often or always does) go for a Rule 29 motion. I can't for the life of me imagine why someone would die on this hill.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It's not anywhere close to semantics. This is fundamental to our legal system. It's absolute basic stuff that you would learn in middle school.

We al learn alot in school and then there is the rea world. Haha. It’s absolutely a reality for many defendants having to prove the doubt and thereby their innocence against overwhelming and sometimes underwhelming evidence.

The fact you won’t recognize this tells me you might not understand it.

 

[NorthDakota]

Why won’t you just admit that it’s semantics and that a criminal defense attorney has one job and that is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their client is innocent.

I gave you four returns for actual criminal lawyers who acknowledge what I m saying is an actual reality of the legal system you love so much.

Sure you can hire a lawyer who does nothing at all. No cross. No evidentiary dismantlement. Just sits there and does nothing while the prosecution does everything. How well does that work? Maybe you can rep yourself? For sure that’s the way to show your innocence. Lol.

The most likely explanation here is cack is really fucking bad at the game of telephone. He writes it off as "semantics" but its not. Hes just flat out misstating the law at this point.

If he's not playing telephone wrong, he's talking to people who should not be admitted to practice law.

 

[NorthDakota]

Yeah Biden is obviously a dirtbag, but I mean, would the same people who are calling him a pedophile do the same with Trump making statements about how he would date her if she wasn't his daughter? Probably not.

Right but a ham sandwich (ie a regular joe) doesn't get indicted for the same things he's likely going to be indicted on. If it was something innocuous that anyone could get charged with then sure ham sandwich stuff applies.

1) is an awkward (so odd) way of saying your daughter is pretty and 2) is allegedly showering with someone old enough to (allegedly) mention it in her diary.

People get indicted for all sorts of shit when they cross a prosecutor. I saw a kid get indicted for watering a Marijuana plant. Judge straight up told me the prosecutor just hates the kid and charges him whenever she can.

If your local prosecutor wants you charged with something, they'll probably find something. If this was Michael Bloomberg or Chuck Schumer, this isn't being charged, unless the indictments are wildly different from what we are led to believe

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

From another law firm site:​

​

​

3 Ways to Prove that You are Innocent After Being Charged with a Crime​

But, let’s say that proving your innocence is your best option. So, how do you prove that you are innocent in Pennsylvania state court? Here are three potential ways to prove that you have not committed the crime with which you have been charged:

1. Presenting an Alibi​

One of the most effective ways to prove your innocence in a Pennsylvania criminal case is by presenting an alibi. If you were somewhere else when the alleged crime took place, then your innocence should be clear to the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury members.
How do you prove an alibi? As with all other aspects of your defense, the available options will depend on the specific circumstances of your case. Some examples of evidence that can be used to prove an alibi include:

• Eye Witness Testimony – If reliable witnesses can testify as to your whereabouts when the alleged crime was committed, their testimony could serve as strong evidence of your innocence.
• Traffic or Surveillance Camera Footage – Video footage of your whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime can be even stronger evidence of innocence than eye witness testimony.
• Phone Records – If your phone records show that you were somewhere else at the time of the alleged crime, presenting these records in court could be enough to establish your innocence in the jurors’ minds.
• Employment, Bank Account, or Other Records – Were you at work when the alleged crime occurred? Do your bank account records (or other records) show that you were doing something other than committing the alleged crime during the time period in question? If so, your criminal lawyer may be able to use these records to prove your innocence.
• Photos, Videos, or Social Media Posts – If you, your family members, or your friends have photos or videos that place you somewhere other than the scene of the alleged crime; your lawyer may be able to use these to prove your innocence as well.

2. Presenting Exculpatory Evidence​

In addition to presenting evidence of an alibi, you may also be able to prove your innocence by presenting other forms of exculpatory evidence.
For example, if the prosecution’s case hinges on DNA evidence, it may be possible to obtain a DNA sample to prove that you are not the culprit. Or, if you are facing a DUI charge, your lawyer may be able to use the breathalyzer device’s maintenance records to show that the device wasn’t properly calibrated at the time of your arrest. These are just two of numerous possibilities, and you will need to work closely with your defense lawyer to figure out what evidence you can use to disprove the allegations against you.

3. Showing that You Have Been Falsely Accused​

A third option for proving your innocence in a Pennsylvania criminal case is to show that you were falsely accused. False allegations are widespread in domestic violence cases, but they can lead to various other types of charges. If you have been falsely accused of a crime, you will need to talk to a defense lawyer about how best to approach your situation. If you have an alibi or other exculpatory evidence is available, your lawyer may be able to use this to prove that you were arrested based upon false allegations—even if you do not have direct evidence to prove that your accuser was lying.

Are You Sure You are Innocent?​

When talking about innocence defenses, it is important not to overlook the critical step of determining whether you are innocent. The Pennsylvania Statutes establish many different criminal offenses. Even if you don’t think you committed a crime, you will need to have a lawyer thoroughly examine the facts of your case to determine if you are at risk for conviction.

Discuss Your Case with Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Brian Fishman in Confidence​

Do you believe that you are innocent of the charges against you? To discuss your case in confidence, schedule an appointment with Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Brian Fishman now. Call 267-758-2228 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Fishman about your case as soon as possible.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Good Lord.

Repeat after me.

You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.
You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.
You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.

You are dying on a hill for which you have an absolutely absurd take on. NOBODY agrees with you. You DON'T have to prove your innocence.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

How do you think the wrongfully convicted get free again?

23 Famous Cases Of Wrongful Imprisonment in America

As of June 2021, a total of 2,795 American exonerees have lost a collective 25,004 years of life to wrongful incarceration, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. This of course doesn’t count people who have served wrongful time without having their charges dismissed; nor does it...

247wallst.com

Common factors that have contributed to these wrongful incarcerations include prosecutor or police misconduct, perjurious testimonies (including those given by jailhouse informants), withholding of evidence, mistaken identification by witnesses, inadequate legal defense, and false or misleading forensic evidence. Racial prejudice and profiling also contributed to some of the wrongful arrests of these exonerees. (Here are the cities where law enforcement makes the most arrests.)

In order to achieve a dismissal of the charges against them, many of these innocent people fought for years, through numerous appeals, before they saw justice. Organizations including the Innocence Project, which seeks to assist prisoners who can be proven innocent with DNA testing, are often invaluable in helping to bring these situations to justice. Many of the people on the list have been exonerated due to post-conviction DNA testing.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Good Lord.

Repeat after me.

You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.
You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.
You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.

You are dying on a hill for which you have an absolutely absurd take on. NOBODY agrees with you.dShow me where I have denies the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Good lord if you are a lawyer you have to determine if the case is best served by doing nothing or by doing something. If you do nothing the risk of being found guilty is way higher. Lol. What’s so hard to understand about this? yes in many instances you actually HAVE TO PROVE THE PROSECUTORS CASE IS DOUBTFUL/INVALID.

I’ve given you sources for my claims. You have clearly not even read them. I have given you actual criminal lawyers on real websites dis using the need for how and why one would need to prove their innocence

 

[NorthDakota]

From another law firm site:​

​

​

3 Ways to Prove that You are Innocent After Being Charged with a Crime​

But, let’s say that proving your innocence is your best option. So, how do you prove that you are innocent in Pennsylvania state court? Here are three potential ways to prove that you have not committed the crime with which you have been charged:

1. Presenting an Alibi​

One of the most effective ways to prove your innocence in a Pennsylvania criminal case is by presenting an alibi. If you were somewhere else when the alleged crime took place, then your innocence should be clear to the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury members.
How do you prove an alibi? As with all other aspects of your defense, the available options will depend on the specific circumstances of your case. Some examples of evidence that can be used to prove an alibi include:

• Eye Witness Testimony – If reliable witnesses can testify as to your whereabouts when the alleged crime was committed, their testimony could serve as strong evidence of your innocence.
• Traffic or Surveillance Camera Footage – Video footage of your whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime can be even stronger evidence of innocence than eye witness testimony.
• Phone Records – If your phone records show that you were somewhere else at the time of the alleged crime, presenting these records in court could be enough to establish your innocence in the jurors’ minds.
• Employment, Bank Account, or Other Records – Were you at work when the alleged crime occurred? Do your bank account records (or other records) show that you were doing something other than committing the alleged crime during the time period in question? If so, your criminal lawyer may be able to use these records to prove your innocence.
• Photos, Videos, or Social Media Posts – If you, your family members, or your friends have photos or videos that place you somewhere other than the scene of the alleged crime; your lawyer may be able to use these to prove your innocence as well.

2. Presenting Exculpatory Evidence​

In addition to presenting evidence of an alibi, you may also be able to prove your innocence by presenting other forms of exculpatory evidence.
For example, if the prosecution’s case hinges on DNA evidence, it may be possible to obtain a DNA sample to prove that you are not the culprit. Or, if you are facing a DUI charge, your lawyer may be able to use the breathalyzer device’s maintenance records to show that the device wasn’t properly calibrated at the time of your arrest. These are just two of numerous possibilities, and you will need to work closely with your defense lawyer to figure out what evidence you can use to disprove the allegations against you.

3. Showing that You Have Been Falsely Accused​

A third option for proving your innocence in a Pennsylvania criminal case is to show that you were falsely accused. False allegations are widespread in domestic violence cases, but they can lead to various other types of charges. If you have been falsely accused of a crime, you will need to talk to a defense lawyer about how best to approach your situation. If you have an alibi or other exculpatory evidence is available, your lawyer may be able to use this to prove that you were arrested based upon false allegations—even if you do not have direct evidence to prove that your accuser was lying.

Are You Sure You are Innocent?​

When talking about innocence defenses, it is important not to overlook the critical step of determining whether you are innocent. The Pennsylvania Statutes establish many different criminal offenses. Even if you don’t think you committed a crime, you will need to have a lawyer thoroughly examine the facts of your case to determine if you are at risk for conviction.

Discuss Your Case with Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Brian Fishman in Confidence​

Do you believe that you are innocent of the charges against you? To discuss your case in confidence, schedule an appointment with Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Brian Fishman now. Call 267-758-2228 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Fishman about your case as soon as possible.

Cack continues to confuse legal standards. This is first week of criminal law stuff.

 

[NorthDakota]

Good lord if you are a lawyer you have to determine if the case is best served by doing nothing or by doing something. If you do nothing the risk of being found guilty is way higher. Lol. What’s so hard to understand about this? yes in many instances you actually HAVE TO PROVE THE PROSECUTORS CASE IS DOUBTFUL/INVALID.

You don't need to prove it's invalid or doubtful. Creating a reasonable doubt often requires doing something, but thats not what proving innocence is.

 

[NorthDakota]

How do you think the wrongfully convicted get free again?

23 Famous Cases Of Wrongful Imprisonment in America

As of June 2021, a total of 2,795 American exonerees have lost a collective 25,004 years of life to wrongful incarceration, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. This of course doesn’t count people who have served wrongful time without having their charges dismissed; nor does it...

247wallst.com

Wrongfully convicted people have the very path you seem to think is required of a standard defendant. They need to prove something resembling innocence to get out. As in the jury/judge were flat out wrong

A typical defendant doesn't need to do anything resembling that

 

[ab2cmiller]

Not Guilty and Innocent - The Problem Children of Reasonable Doubt | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

The difference between guilty, not guilty and innocent | Ramos & Del Cueto, PLLC

People often think of a criminal court case as one that determines if you are innocent or guilty. These are seen as opposites and the jury’s goal is to decide which one applies. In some ways, though, this is misleading. A jury never actually says that you are innocent. They merely decide if...

www.ramosdelcueto.com

Melissa Martin: Not guilty vs. innocent: What's the difference?

Guilty or not guilty. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. In the USA court of law the verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty" instead of "guilty" or "innocent."

apnews.com

What Is The Difference Between Not Guilty and Innocent? - Legal Blaze

Innocent vs. Not Guilty It isn't unusual for the general public to not know the correct meanings behind some of the most common phrases in law. In some examples, you may even think you know what something means, only to find out it's something else. An example of this is 'not guilty' and...

legalblaze.com

What does Acquitted Mean? How Does it Happen?

If you stand trial & you are acquitted or found not guilty, it does not mean that the jury has found you innocent, but you still have options.

decastroverdelaw.com

Actual Innocence and How It Differs From a Not Guilty Verdict - FindLaw

When a jury or judge reaches a verdict after a trial, they have two choices -- guilty or not guilty. Innocence doesn't really come up too much in the criminal justice system, which may seem strange to some. Actual innocence is different from being found not guilty after trial. But to understand...

www.findlaw.com

The Difference Between Acquitted vs. Not Guilty

If you are charged with a crime in California, your criminal defense lawyer should make every effort to protect your rights and strategically pursue an outcome that is in your favor. Successful outcomes can come in a variety of forms.

www.kazarianatlaw.com

The Difference Between Proving Someone is Innocent and Being Found Guilty ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’

What is the difference between proving someone is innocent and found guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Josh Taaffe explains BRD and the law.

www.criminal-lawyers.com.au

Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

We al learn alot in school and then there is the rea world. Haha. It’s absolutely a reality for many defendants having to prove the doubt and thereby their innocence against overwhelming and sometimes underwhelming evidence.

The fact you won’t recognize this tells me you might not understand it.

This guy gets a hardon for vindicating his clients innocence. Vindicating. Please refer to Websters dictionary for the definition of vindication. This is not the same as Trumps future use of vindictment. Lol

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Good Lord.

Repeat after me.

You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.
You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.
You CAN prove your innocence to be found NOT GUILTY. You can be found NOT GUILTY without proving your innocent.

You are dying on a hill for which you have an absolutely absurd take on. NOBODY agrees with you. You DON'T have to prove your innocence.

I must’ve missed it, but where did Cack say you HAVE to prove your innocence?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Not Guilty and Innocent - The Problem Children of Reasonable Doubt | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

The difference between guilty, not guilty and innocent | Ramos & Del Cueto, PLLC

People often think of a criminal court case as one that determines if you are innocent or guilty. These are seen as opposites and the jury’s goal is to decide which one applies. In some ways, though, this is misleading. A jury never actually says that you are innocent. They merely decide if...

www.ramosdelcueto.com

Melissa Martin: Not guilty vs. innocent: What's the difference?

Guilty or not guilty. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. In the USA court of law the verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty" instead of "guilty" or "innocent."

apnews.com

What Is The Difference Between Not Guilty and Innocent? - Legal Blaze

Innocent vs. Not Guilty It isn't unusual for the general public to not know the correct meanings behind some of the most common phrases in law. In some examples, you may even think you know what something means, only to find out it's something else. An example of this is 'not guilty' and...

legalblaze.com

What does Acquitted Mean? How Does it Happen?

If you stand trial & you are acquitted or found not guilty, it does not mean that the jury has found you innocent, but you still have options.

decastroverdelaw.com

Actual Innocence and How It Differs From a Not Guilty Verdict - FindLaw

When a jury or judge reaches a verdict after a trial, they have two choices -- guilty or not guilty. Innocence doesn't really come up too much in the criminal justice system, which may seem strange to some. Actual innocence is different from being found not guilty after trial. But to understand...

www.findlaw.com

The Difference Between Acquitted vs. Not Guilty

If you are charged with a crime in California, your criminal defense lawyer should make every effort to protect your rights and strategically pursue an outcome that is in your favor. Successful outcomes can come in a variety of forms.

www.kazarianatlaw.com

The Difference Between Proving Someone is Innocent and Being Found Guilty ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’

What is the difference between proving someone is innocent and found guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Josh Taaffe explains BRD and the law.

www.criminal-lawyers.com.au

Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Again show me where I denied the theory of innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I must’ve missed it, but where did Cack say you HAVE to prove your innocence?

I didn’t say you HAVE TO. NEVER. I SAID SOMETIMES THE BEST LEGAL STRATEGY WILL NECESSITATE IT.

I have given evidence in several posts of the practical reality of generating reasonable doubt not just the legal theory of innocent until proven guilty. Some people can seem to understand that some defendants require much more defending than others.

ABC is stuck on the idea that if any criminal relies solely on the innocent until proven guilty strategy that they will be successful (I assume every time) and that criminal defense attorneys don’t have to show or prove innocence by generating doubt in the opponents case.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

I didn’t say you HAVE TO. NEVER. I SAID SOMETIMES THE BEST LEGAL STRATEGY WILL NECESSITATE IT.

Exactly. Yet, everyone arguing against you is claiming you said that one has to prove their innocence.

 

[NorthDakota]

This guy gets a hardon for vindicating his clients innocence. Vindicating. Please refer to Websters dictionary for the definition of vindication. This is not the same as Trumps future use of vindictment. Lol

Cack is referencing impeaching a witness. This does not prove innocence. It helps create a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of his statements.

 

[NorthDakota]

Exactly. Yet, everyone arguing against you is claiming you said that one has to prove their innocence.

He said Nancy's words were "semantics." They are not. He has proceeded to say the defendant needs to prove their innocence. Which is not the case, outside of maybe wrongful conviction stuff. But hes flat out wrong. You are a smart guy, there is no need to jump in to defend him here.

 

[ab2cmiller]

This is what Cack posted. It may not have been what he meant. But it's flat out incorrect. It's not semantics. You can be found not guilty without proving your innocence. If that's not what he meant. I don't know why he's been defending himself as if he had for the past three days.

This is semantics. The trials exonerate or confirm the charges. If you are not found guilty of the charges your innocence has been proven. The defense of person on trial has to prove the prosecutions evidence isn’t enough to convict.

 

[NorthDakota]

This is what Cack posted. It may not have been what he meant. But it's flat out incorrect. It's not semantics. You can be found not guilty without proving your innocence. If that's not what he meant. I don't know why he's been defending himself as if he had for the past three days.

He also wouldn't be grabbing so many articles about innocence if that were the case