Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you review this thread you'll see that Mister Ohio argues for and against the presumption of innocence depending on whether or not the principal advances his extreme right-wing position in a particular context. So he argued for the presumption of innocence in the case of Kavanaugh and argues against it in the case of Andrew Gillum. I agree with you that it is a legal right that applies to the accused in a criminal trial. Neither Kavanaugh nor Gilliam have been charged with criminal offenses so the presumption of innocence is irrelevant to their situations at this time.

This is not true. And you know it. Once again you post deceit.

Gillum is innocent until evidence is presented. If some jerk or political hack comes forward asserting accusations of corruption, without any evidence, then throw the jerk out. If some unknown woman comes forward with 36 year old accusations of abuse, yet no corroborating evidence, then throw her out.

Gillum is a public servant, elected to office by the city of Tallahassee, and should be protected from specious, frivolous claims. Neither should he ever be the victim of slander.

But! It was an undercover FBI agent who was paid off posing as a developer. Gillum used the power of the purse to line his own pockets. But if the charges by the FBI Agent are false, then Gillum can easily prove it. Why did he not do so? He has numerous office staff who could vouch for his whereabouts on the day of the Hamilton show, and staff that could prove actual payment. Why did he not do so.

Why can't zeek know the difference? Because zeek is shipwrecked. He has not held onto faith or a good conscience. (I Tim 1.19) Perhaps Gillum is his idol. "Little children, guard yourselves from idols." (I John 5.20)