Reply #20: You're misapplying a principle [View All]

[kenny blankenship]

"innocent until proven guilty" is a principle in criminal proceedings. It and its fellow traveler, "beyond a shadow of a doubt", both derive from the belief that the freedom of the individual is so important that even when accused of a serious crime that person is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, so they would not be deprived of life or liberty on the basis of flimsy evidence and bias.
It does NOT apply in civil court matters. And a court-led inquiry into truth or falsehood of a theft of a nationwide election, or a series of elections, such as the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly, would be an investigation of the breakdown in the integrity of our electoral system, not a trial where named inviduals would be defending themselves against specific charges. Criminal trials could come later, but the question itself is a civil matter without a defendant. However, we don't allow Federal courts to take on civil questions as they do in Britain. In deciding the question though, whether acts of concerted election fraud took place, the presumption of innocence is a stranger dragged in from outside. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof which must be met before confirming the proposition is likewise dragged in from a different arena. The preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard.