"Under its traditional meaning, exoneration follows accusation and adjudication. It is conferred by a court or investigative authority after a formal process. In Trump's case, there has been no prosecution tied to Epstein. No indictment. No trial. No judicial finding clearing him of wrongdoing. By the conventional definition, there was nothing to exonerate."
"In a fragmented, post-institutional media environment, repetition can outpace definition. If fully exonerated is said often enough, forcefully enough, and without sustained correction that carries equal reach, the public meaning of the term begins to shift. It drifts from a legal outcome to a political assertion. From something granted to something claimed."
"Trump is not merely arguing that he was never charged. He is compressing not indicted, not prosecuted, and not proven guilty into a single, blunt phrase that implies formal vindication. The word does the work of an institution. It creates the impression of a resolved case where no case formally existed."
President Trump has repeatedly declared himself fully exonerated in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, using this phrase as a ritualistic statement. However, exoneration traditionally requires a formal legal process involving prosecution, indictment, trial, and judicial findings. In Trump's case, no such proceedings occurred. By continuously asserting this claim without sustained correction, Trump attempts to redefine exoneration from a legal outcome to a political assertion. This strategy exploits a fragmented media environment where repetition can shift public understanding of language. The approach compresses "not indicted," "not prosecuted," and "not proven guilty" into a single phrase implying formal vindication, creating an impression of resolution where no formal case existed.
#language-manipulation #political-rhetoric #exoneration-claims #media-environment #institutional-authority
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]