Then as a Democrat well to the left of her, but who has respected her, I have to agree that in this one particular instance, she fucked up.
It is a circular argument. Nancy is a Political Science major and not a lawyer, so she don't always speak in Legal terms. She should have just said Trump will receive his due process.
Naturally the DA has to prove the defendant is Guilty. And Nancy knows that!
And when the DA has proof that the defendant is guilty, and it is presented to the jury, the defendant still has the right to prove they are innocent any way they can, if they can. Usually by refuting the evidence presented by the Prosecution, or by presenting evidence of their own.
Now if the DA has no proof and cannot prove guilt, the defendant don't have to prove SHIT! They can just walk away! Because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Nancy knows this and everybody else does to.
But, normally, everybody has something to prove in a trial- one way or another before all is said and done.
The DA presents their evidence and witnesses to prove guilt, and the Defense presents their evidence and witnesses to prove innocence- otherwise why would they produce any evidence or witnesses?
TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE- OF COURSE!
So. really, it is a circular argument.
The thing is, no one should be getting hung up on circular arguments!
We all know how the system works- Nancy included!