The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard we use in courts of criminal law to decide whether criminal punishment is warranted.
It should not be the standard for deciding whether someone should become a high public official responsible for representing everyone in the state.
Donald Trump, his spokesliar Sarah Sanders
I’m stealing that
So can you only read when it fits your narrative? He's not on trial. This isn't a court of law. He fucked little girls and wants to fuck yours too, if he can get that shriveled little thing erect.
This isn't a court of law. Its balance of probabilities or 50 plus 1.
Does he meet that in my opinion? Holly fuck yes.
If the state wants to impose punishment on someone, it needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
But you or I are free to dislike - and not vote for - someone based on even a mere hint of impropriety.
I think of it like this. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't trust Roy Moore to babysit her. I don't need to prove him guilty in a court of law, or adhere to "innocent until proven guilty" before I make that decision. Same with trusting him with a position of political power.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is for the judicial system, and is necessary for a fair trial. It's kind of like how the 1st amendment only applies actions by the government.
Also, it's not as if Trump supporters care about "innocent until proven guilty" if it's a Democrat. They don't give a shit about any of that unless it's their guy.
In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
Yes, in a court of law when the state is looking to impose a punishment on a person.
But your ordinary person on the street doesn't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a creep to be able to say "that guy is a creep, I'm probably not going to vote for him".
Roy Moore was un benched TWICE for now following the US constitution. He shouldn't even be disqualified because he can't take the oath.