>> No proof = not guilty.
I don’t think you get the fact that Herman Cain is not on trial for a crime, and I’m not sitting on his jury.
Instead, Herman Cain is vying for my vote, and putting his skills, experience, and character up for review.
Therefore, different standards apply.
In a court trial, I may listen to testimony and in my heart realize the defendent is guilty as sin — and yet, because I’m held to a “beyond the shadow of a doubt” standard, I may be forced to concede the fact that there’s no “smoking gun” proof.
In Cain’s case, I hear from his own lips that he supported a single woman for thirteen years without telling his wife. Being a married man, I know in my heart damn well why he did this. I can and will make my judgment about whether to give him my vote and support, or withhold same, based on what is obvious, if not “proven”.
You do what you want. But you know damn well that in court, “no proof=not guilty” isn’t even true; criminals get off all the time on technicalities.
But Cain will not get my vote based on *your* insistance on judging him by technicality. I know what the truth is, and will withhold my vote based on that knowledge.
Clear?
What an arrogant fool.
I have a question. Did Cain say he supported this woman every month for 13 years (that would include paying for all her expenses as that is the definition of supporting her) or.......did he give her money from time to time over the course of the 13 years that he'd known her?
I really thought he said he'd only helped her out occasionally when she couldn't meet her rent.