Official MTG hearing thread: OMG

[Ms. Toad]

97. Hard to tell from your summary what was actually presented to you -

But it seems like a thought exercise - asking "if we prove all we just said, what would your verdict be?" (Since the jury does not render a verdict before the evidence is presented, asking about a verdict puts you at the point in the trial AFTER the evidence is presented.)

If that is the case, yours isn't the right answer. (The other answers aren't necessarily the right answer either.) But, as you described it, you weren't being asked about a legal principle (the presumption of innocence) - you were being asked to think about the proposed evidence, and how you might react to that body of evidence.

As to MTG, she may well have done something which legally bars her from office. The law being asserted against her does not require having obtained a guilty verdict. The current proceeding is charged with evaulating whether she engaged in behavior which disqualifies her. It is not a criminal case (it is an administrative matter). The standards are different (likely a preponderance of the evidence - i.e. 51%, rather than clear and convincing). There is no presumption of innocence (that only applies in criminal trials).