We're not in a court of law, which requires a presumption of innocence. IN the court of public opinion, it's fair to render opinions of guilt or innocence based on a person's moral history while being mindful of the standard required in a court. Trump settled for $25 million for a fake university, paid a $2 million fine for a fake charity in which he was embezzling funds for private expenses, defrauding donors, and the charity was shut down for 'illegal activity'.
He founded his campaign on a lie about Obama, Fornicated with a pornstar and a playmate just after his newly wed wife gave birth. once tried to evict a widow out of her home using eminent domain, for the purpose of building a parking lot for his casino (the lady's name was Vera Coking). Bragged on Howard Stern about barging in on teens in their dressing rooms in various stages of dress, during pageants because 'he owned them and was inspecting'. and then there are the 25 women accusing him of sexual misconduct, some acts of which he bragged about, he stiffed over 100 contractors, either cut their pay in half or didn't pay them at all, just because he knew he could get away with it.
And I'm just scratching the surface, this is a guy who, in the faces of charges, it's not a stretch to believe he is guilty. Now, if asked to serve on a jury, I'd have to be open minded. But, short of that, sitting home, we can speculate, it's okay.
Frankly, I'm not comfortable with the hush money charge. I'd like to see Willis or Garland charge him for something really serious.
And, if he is innocent, a court of law will give the man his day in court, and we will find out, once and for all, if this man is truly the biggest crook to have ever occupied the office of the Presidency.
My gut feeling is that he is guilty, and I don't arrive at that conclusion in a vacuum. But, we shall see.
