I understand the broader point but it is not actually constitutionally problematic for the executive branch to assert that a suspect committed a crime - of course they believe that, that's why the suspect was arrested! It is better for an elected official to preface things with "allegedly" "we believe" etc, but the governor is ultimately speaking on behalf of the prosecution, not the judge. The first half of this article is based on a bad-faith misreading of the governor's words.
A psychotic take on the situation. An unrelated politician states "We got him"; Telegraph hysterically projects that US is finding someone guilty without a trial.
Innocent until proven guilty? How about you don't treat the whole country as guilty until it is proven guilty?
I understand the broader point but it is not actually constitutionally problematic for the executive branch to assert that a suspect committed a crime - of course they believe that, that's why the suspect was arrested! It is better for an elected official to preface things with "allegedly" "we believe" etc, but the governor is ultimately speaking on behalf of the prosecution, not the judge. The first half of this article is based on a bad-faith misreading of the governor's words.
A psychotic take on the situation. An unrelated politician states "We got him"; Telegraph hysterically projects that US is finding someone guilty without a trial.
Innocent until proven guilty? How about you don't treat the whole country as guilty until it is proven guilty?
https://archive.ph/2025.09.13-115727/https://www.telegraph.c...
It makes for great television though.