Thread by @PracticalLefty

Very useful for responding to the "innocent until proven guilty" charge GOPPERS use in attempts to discredit those who say Moore is guilty. Saves you a bit of typing.

#Roymoore

washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wem…

The full phrase, "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," is a legal construct that applies to judges and juries, who must be impartial to warrant due process.

MORE⬇️

The abbreviated phrase, "innocent until proven guilty," has been satisfied by the evidence provided by the diligence of the WaPo reporter.

WHEN presented in a court of law, it is sufficient to prove guilt. The fact it hasn't YET been presented in a courtroom is irrelevant.

For the "hearsay" charge: it is only "hearsay" because the reporter is telling stories as told to her. Were the four victims to tell their stories in court that they told the reporter, their stories would not be hearsay, but rather, legitimate testimony.

A defense attorney cd try to tear their stories apart, but likely wd be unsuccessful. Small details might be challengeable, but corroborating evidence (the fact these stories were told to family & friends years ago), plus consistency among witnesses, wd convince an impartial jury

The expectation of impartiality goes both ways. Juries also have to be open to the possibility that the DEFENSE is false. Those who are spouting the phrase to defend Moore are hardly impartial, and certainly their own political motivations are implicated in their defense...

...particularly because they refuse to address which elements of the stories can be refuted.

Moore's defenders use generic rather than specific defenses pointing to other evidence. Such generic defenses would not work in court in response to the details of the victim's stories.

Their defenses make it clear they've not actually read the WaPo story. Likely they've only read SM and conservative media versions of the story, which also show no evidence of acquaintance w/the details of the WaPo story.

Moreover, since only the 14-year old was under age, charges couldn't be brought against Moore for the others.

Their stories fall into the realm of unethical, not illegal, deeds by Moore. They would never be addressed in a court of law. The fact they haven't/won't be adjudicated

...in a court of law is irrelevant to voters' decisions.

Charges relating to ethics follow the "preponderance of evidence" requirement when argued in prof. tribunals. Prof. tribunals may use hearsay evidence, since the issue is unethical rather than illegal behavior.

Prof tribunals don't have to wait until guilt is established by a court--it wd be crazy to have it otherwise since unethical behavior is never tried in a court in the first place.

Voters are an unofficial form of a professional tribunal. Thus we aren't required to wait, either.

Voters aren't deciding whether Moore should go to jail. They are deciding whether e should be a U.S. Senator.

trumpians decided that HRC should not be president, based on entirely on unsubstantiated charges, which were in fact adjudicated by both houses of Congress.