Can I please explain "innocent until proven guilty" for a President?
"Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard we use only for incarceration. It is not the standard one uses for electing a President.
Let me make a slight analogy. I represented workers who occasionally were disciplined for workplace violations. I was a union Business Agent. Often, the disciplined worker would say, "they can't prove (fill in the blank)", thinking that the alleged infraction had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I explained that the infraction only had to reach a 51% threshold, "was it more likely than not to have occurred". The employer could use past job performance (if it was bad) and I could use past job performance (if it was favorable).
I mention this because supporters of President Trump seem to think if he can "beat the rap", he's qualified for President. I contend Trump is already disqualified under the workplace standard. After all, he wants to be re-instated to his previous position.
Trump is not accused by rumor. He is accused of violating the espionage act by "willful retention" of sensitive national security information, refusing to return it to the government (the employer) when requested and then demanded to do so. He also obstructed the investigation. Trump was already found to have passed that "51%" threshold (probable cause) by a grand jury of his peers, after they carefully reviewed the information. This is a serious violation of his employment responsibilities.
In addition, in a civil case, which uses at least the 51% threshold for "more likely than not, to have occurred" Trump was found responsible in committing sexual abuse (sexual assault, in actuality) unanimously by a jury of his peers. Who would hire, or in this case, rehire, an employee found guilty of such a charge.
Put aside his racist and misogynistic public posts, both past and recent, and no board of Directors, HR supervisor, or manager at any level would dare recommend such a person to be employed in any position in a company, never mind the CEO. Please take note, that I'm not talking about some rumor, innuendo or anonymous allegations on some internet blog. But a true deliberation by an impartial panel, after looking at all the facts, in two very serious cases.
I fully stand by the "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt" standards for incarceration. But the standard for electing a President of the United States has to be much more decerning.
= new reply since forum marked as read
for a President to earn your vote.
That's the point. I know the constitution. There is no need to explain it to me. You can hire anyone as an employee if you're a manger of a company, but what standard do you apply in hiring?
One of the reasons I left the USA to reside in a foreign country is because 100 million people (75 million voters) think electing Trump is a good idea. I get it. I can't live among that many racists. The Philippines is not perfect, but they don't shoot their children in school, and I haven't encountered any racism or racist comment in two years here. In America, I never went a day without hearing a racist comment. I'm inter-racially married (Filipina). I get it. I know the constitution allows Trump to run; and OJ and that hateful shooter who was just convicted in Pittsburgh (until he's executed). But, as a voter, I may find their legal problems disqualifying for my vote (I still have US citizenship, a legal residence and vote by absentee ballot. I still pay taxes in the US. "No Taxation Without Representation"
.
