What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It still exists---in a court of law.
And there isn't a court in this country that can abrogate your right or my right to make a call
on guilt or innocence based on the information available.
You can determine a man's guilt or innocence based on information made available to you
before an accusation finds its way into a courtroom (in the Moore case it would have to be
civil litigation, considering the criminal statute of limitations), you simply can't punish him
under the law. About the only way anyone could punish Mr. Moore if they believe him guilty
as accused would be for Alabama voters to deny him election to the Senate. But the
available information still allows you to decide whether, in Mr. Moore's case, it's innocent,
guilty, or Lucy-you-got-some-more-splainin'-to-do.
Remember: We didn't need a court to determine Droopy Drawers Clinton guilty of serial
adultery or committing perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction justice on behalf of
trying to cover up a little presidential nooky in the White House; we had enough information
available even before the impeachment trial to know he was guilty.
We didn't need a court to determine Hilarious Rodent Clinton's guilt regarding her e-mail
servers, Benghazi, and turning the Democratic National Committee into her personal
rubber stamp. (That may not be illegal but it was damn sure unethical at minimum.) We
have enough information on all the above to know she was guilty.
We didn't even need a court to tell us O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder. We had enough
information to know he was guilty even before the prosecution completely screwed up
the criminal trial. Which reminds me, too, that the legal presumption of innocence may
still exist in a court of law, but courts
have been known to screw the proverbial
pooch. Both ways. The innocent have been convicted often enough; the guilty have been
acquitted often enough.
