Despite our founders wanting a radically decentralized government, the likes of which have never before been seen, they did have to concede that in the matters of executing justice, there needed to be a state monopoly.
By Deb Billado, Chairwoman, VT GOP
So to balance this out they devised a simple principle still largely unique to America, namely the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty." The founders devised such a high bar on purpose. In the land birthed on the ideas of freedom, they had a peculiar preference for it, to the point that it was written that they would rather see nine guilty men go free, than one innocent man found guilty.
But the court of public opinion operates under difference rules. And this is likely why so many in the main stream media would prefer to bring their accusations against conservatives to audiences with more "flexible" standards.
In 2012 Mitt Romney was famously accused of cheating on his taxes by then Sen. Harry Reid. No documentation was produced, nor witnesses were ever brought forward. Yet he was judged guilty by the media. Even after his loss Sen. Reid's reply when asked about how true it was simply said "It worked, didn't it?" It is a logical impossibility to prove that something did NOT happen. that's why the burden of proof is put on the accuser to prove what DID happen.
Similarly, Kyle Rittenhouse was accused in the media of murder after civil unrest broke out in Kenosha, WI. He was assumed guilty and he would have stayed that way until video evidence came later suggesting it could have been self-defense. Ultimately the evidence will come out in his legal trial.
Now Sidney Powell, a former attorney for President Trump's legal team, is making some pretty significant accusations about voter fraud - all through media channels. To avoid the inconsistency of the Left, we need to hold Mrs. Powell to the same standard. It's unclear who exactly she is claiming committed the fraud, whether it is the company who built the voting machines, or whether it is former Vice President Biden himself. But in either we have to presume innocence until evidence is produced.
If anyone produces solid, undeniable evidence that proves "beyond reasonable doubt" that fraud was committed, then the guilty must be punished and made an example of. But if no evidence is produced then we are left making the same assumption we do about Romney, Rittenhouse, and so many others - they are assumed innocent.
This is the only way to demonstrate that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of whims. This idea of applying the law equally (egardless of who is accused) is one of the checks that our founders placed on a large government. As once said by abolitionist minister Theodore Parker, then rephrased by Martin Luther King "The arc of of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."