3 ms·
> this sounds like a failure of the legal system, not of the defendant 100%. He found a flaw and exploited it to escape justice, which is different than not be
by throwawayq3423 1y ago
> this sounds like a failure of the legal system, not of the defendant
100%. He found a flaw and exploited it to escape justice, which is different than not being guilty of the crimes he clearly committed.
- dotancohen 1y agoYes, good point.
- dotancohen 1y agoOn second thought, isn't a core tenet of the US justice system "innocent until proven guilty"? Under that tenet, along with the fact that he was never found guilty, wouldn't US values require considering him innocent? Or have US values changed since that tenet was adopted?
- throwawayq3423 1y agoHe had already been convicted of multiple unrelated felonies. He was in the process of being tried in multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions regarding his attempts to compromise an American election, each time with overwhelming, nearly comical evidence against him. Saying he's innocent until proven guilty not only ignores the reality that the cases against him, even based on what is publicly available evidence, were airtight, but also the fact that these cases only went away because he won re-election and made them go away. That's not justice.