Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[BananaStand]

Well it's not "irrefutable." It simply hasn't been refuted YET (at least not in a court of law). It's a subtle yet important distinction.

Wow. That's NOT how justice works in America. That's how justice works in your imaginary dreamland where the government is wholly corrupt, but only in ways you like, so it's ok.

[Poopadoop]

Wow. That's NOT how justice works in America. That's how justice works in your imaginary dreamland where the government is wholly corrupt, but only in ways you like, so it's ok.

Nope, you're being a dummy again. Get a dictionary. Honestly it will help you.

There's an objective truth that exists outside of any legal status. Saying a person who hasn't been charged with a crime is "irrefutably, objectively" innocent is just silly. A person either did or did not commit a crime. If they did they are objectively and irrefutably guilty of that crime, whether it's been tried in a court of law or not. They still need to be convicted in court in order to be punished for that crime, but objectively they ARE irrefutably guilty. And if they are irrefutably guilty in an objective sense, then they get convicted in a court, that means their innocence was not irrefutable, since their conviction definitely refutes it.

Arguing that someone is "objectively" innocent of a crime because a) you're personally unaware of any evidence that might impugn them; and b) they've yet to be tried for it in a court of law (presumably this only works if it's an American court of law, because other countriees just throw whoever they like in prison with no trial) is just silly. It's like saying before Newton proved gravity was a thing, gravity "objectively" didn't exist. Of course it did, and you're an idiot if you try to argue otherwise.

[Poopadoop]

Also, arguing Trump's (current) legal status as "innocent" is relevant to the discussion implies that this status means he has therefore not committed any crimes that he could be found guilty of. It's just a horrible, illogical argument that wouldn't get past a high school law class.

[BananaStand]

objectively and irrefutably guilty of that crime, whether it's been tried in a court of law or not.

The exact language is...

"presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Wanna try that whole spiel over again?

[Poopadoop]

The exact language is...

"presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Wanna try that whole spiel over again?

Can you really not see the difference between this and what you said in your post?

The key word here is "presumed"

Take a minute to think it over and maybe get a dictionary and thesaurus out. You'll see that "presumed" has quite a different meaning than "objective" or "irrefutable".

The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with objective truth. It is where all cases begin at point zero, before any evidence is presented.

The presumption of innocence is entirely refutable during the course of a trial given compelling enough evidence. That's the prosecutor's job.

I understand it's a bit of a head-bender for some lower IQ folks such as yourself. Try thinking again about the difference between an "objective" truth and a truth that has been proven using evidence.