10-08-2018, 02:43 PM
(10-08-2018, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why wouldn't we start with those that said he was not entitled to the presumption of innocence; as that is the question as hand, not guilt or innocence?
Because that is the main point you are missing. Most people did not say he was guilty. Instead they just said that he should be subject to an investigation of the charges.
It is possible to not make any presumption of guilt or innocence before hearing all the facts, and that goes back to the point I was making earlier. The right is trying to twist this "presumption of innocence" to a "presumption the accuser is lying" in all "he said/she said" cases. Most people don't work that way in real life. They don't call either side a liar until they know all the facts. They neither presume one side is lying or presume the other is innocent.
