Tgards79 wrote:
Moore's defenders are saying "innocent until proven guilty." But he is not on trial.
Except in the 'court of public opinion' of course.
Tgards79 wrote:
He is running for the Senate. Alabamans have to decide whether they should send this man to Washington to represent them in the Senate. The standard is not "innocent until proven guilty." It is what do Alabamans think about this man based on what they have read by the time E******n Day occurs.
Not only is he not 'innocent until proven guilty', he hasn't even been arrested. Not only is there no case, there isn't even 'probable cause'. and yet here we sit, jurors in the court of public opinion.
Tgards79 wrote:
There will be no trial by then to determine either guilt or innocence.
That's right. No arrest, no charges, no trial. Just a ceaseless smear campaign.
Tgards79 wrote:
So that cannot be the standard. Alabamans have to make their own judgment on the merits. You have to ask yourself, why would these women make this up out of whole cloth, throwing their lives into utter disarray? Simply to try to swing an e******n? That seems unlikely to me. Their stories are detailed
Like I always say whenever someone does something that, on the surface, makes no sense. Follow the money. There's money changing hands here, I just know it, I can almost taste it.
Tgards79 wrote:
Moore has not denied that he dated teenagers, and plenty of people seem to have corroborated that he hung around in malls and dated teenage girls.
OK, and teenage girls dated him right back. What does that prove? What does that even allude to? That he liked having young girls around? Big whoop. At least they were girls.
Tgards79 wrote:
The important thing, Alabamans: judge the man by yourself, now, based on what you have read.
Ding! There it is. There's the 'money shot'. "[J]udge the man by yourself, now, based on what you have read". Based on what you have read. Do it. Now.
Tgards79 wrote:
Don't hide behind "innocent until proven guilty" because that would be true if he shot a man yesterday in cold blood.
Also be true if he blew up the White House, or knifed an infant, stole a car, or committed any other crime under the sun, but not for what he's accused of, right? No-one gets to 'hide behind' the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a maxim that attempts to ensure cooler heads prevail and justice is served. This (very wise) assumption is based on the cast-iron fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. He cannot possibly prove that he did not do these things, hence the burden of proof always rests with the accuser to prove he did do these things.
Tgards79 wrote:
Just because there is no time for a trial does not preclude guilt. You have to figure that out yourself on this one.
Yeah. No time for an arrest, either. Wait! Does that mean he's 'above the law'?