House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has proposed a way for President Trump to respond to her party's impeachment investigation.
He should prove his innocence.
Pelosi's comments came Thursday during her weekly news conference:
TRENDING: America's most dangerous demographic
It was Fox News reporter Chad Pergram who asked Pelosi, "Why would the public not think that the House is dead set on a course to impeach the president?"
Pelosi responded, "It's called an impeachment inquiry and if the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President that means if you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known."
The The Gateway Pundit pointed out the "burden is actually on the prosecution to prove that President Trump committed a crime."
"As far as the exculpatory evidence Pelosi is demanding, READ THE TRANSCRIPT of Trump’s July 25 phone call to Zelensky."
She isn't the first Democrat to upend the tradition of the presumption of innocence and the burden of the accuser to present evidence of guilt.
In an interview with MSNBC, former CIA Director John Brennan said, "People are innocent, you know, until alleged to be involved in some kind of criminal activity."
With sincere apologies in advance to all US liberals who are offended by criticisms of former CIA chiefs, @JohnBrennan's understanding of the presumption of innocence is completely warped, but in the most unsurprising way imaginable: pic.twitter.com/IsE8ulSJMo
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2019
Zerohedge featured journalist Glenn Greenwald's Twitter post on Brennan's statement.
Greenwald wrote, "With sincere apologies in advance to all U.S. liberals who are offended by criticisms of former CIA chiefs, @JohnBrennan's understanding of the presumption of innocence is completely warped, but in the most unsurprising way imaginable:"
Zerohedge explained: "The presumption of innocence, as a foundation of the U.S. judicial system, has seemingly been under attack since November 8th 2016. An allegation is made, media runs with the narrative, the seed of possibility of guilt is implanted in the minds of zombie Americans, and the accused is maligned forever – no court required. Simple. And now, none other than former CIA Director John Brennan clarifies exactly how the deep state sees 'due process'…"
Zerohedge said that some have suggested, in Brennan's defense, "that he was being sarcastic, or even joking, but nothing in his delivery suggests that and furthermore, it's not the smartest thing to say given the goings on at the margin of the legal[] system and the death-by-allegation media narratives that are swarming around the enemies of his deep-state attack."
"Of course, we should by now know full well how to treat anything that comes out of Brennan's mouth."
Greenwald pointed out that Brennan was totally wrong regarding the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation of President Trump.
An all-time MSNBC/CIA/Brennan classic, from just a couple of weeks before Mueller closed his investigation without indicting any American for conspiring with Russia over the election. Maybe life-long disinformation agents aren't the best "news" analysts: pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2019
Brennan, now a CNN commentator, also has accused Trump of treason.
Following special counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that there was no collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign, Brennan told MSNBC's "Morning Joe": "I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was."
Significantly, CNN provided no disclaimer that viewers listening to Brennan's commentary on the Mueller probe should take into account his own complicity in initiating the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Previously, Mueller had been accused of violating "the most sacred traditions" of prosecutors as well his purview as special counsel by presenting opinions about why President Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction while not referring charges.
It was Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who confronted Mueller at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
"You wrote 180 pages – 180 pages – about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided," the congressman said. "And respectfully, respectfully by doing that you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged."
Mueller repeated later, at the urging of Democrats, his conclusion that he could not exonerate the president regarding obstruction of justice.
But Ratcliffe argued that such editorializing wasn't part of the special counsel's instructions, nor is it allowable in the U.S. justice system.
The job of a prosecutor, he emphasized, is to decide whether or not there is probable cause that a crime was committed. In the meantime, the accused is presumed innocent.
In the first part of Mueller's 448-page report, he explained why his team came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
But Ratcliffe pointed out that in the second part of Mueller's report, the special prosecutor ignored the standard presumption of innocence in American jurisprudence.
Mueller, the lawmaker said, went out of his way to state he couldn't conclude the president was exonerated.
"Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?" Ratcliffe asked.
Mueller stumbled, appearing to not want to answer.
Ratcliffe rephrased the question: "Where does that language come from? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"
Ratcliffe cut to the chase: "I'll make it easier. Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"
Mueller said he was unable.
See the exchange: