Agreed. We must not presume the guilt of anyone - least of all on the basis of "intuition" (though I do not discount it's usefulness - see below). As for "premature judgment," many on this board have rushed to judgment themselves, refusing to consider even the possibility of wrongdoing. The man is innocent until proven otherwise, but serious allegations have been made.
Of course, those with limited means may be unable to afford the cost of defending themselves against such allegations (due in large part to the high fees demanded by lawyers). One would think, however, that money would not be as much of a problem for a successful businessman like Cain, who might (you can answer this better than I) also be able to use political contributions for legal expenses.
A number of (now former) supporters on Cain threads have expressed disappointment that he "gave up so easily" rather than fight the charges. And here is where intuition comes in. You're a lawyer: let's be honest - you can pretty much tell when someone's got something to hide, right?
A hunch is only as good as the information it is based on. If I knew Cain in person, knew all the facts his lawyer knows, could actively ask questions of all the principals, I might have some basis for applying my life experience to those facts and assess his truthfulness. But all I have is carefully structured, spoon-fed hearsay and his response to that hearsay. Unless there’s eventually something more concrete and natural to go by, I am happy to accept his denials at face value. I am simply too far removed from his situation to do anything else and still be honest with myself.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have opinions. That can’t be prevented anyway. But conservatives owe it to themselves to base those opinions, to the extent possible, on verified facts. Sometimes the circumstances don’t allow that. Some emergency exists and you have to summon all your life experience in an instant and make the right choice. That’s what some people mean when they say intuition. It has the defect that it is still based on a combination of facts and beliefs, some of which may be extremely inaccurate.
So while “intuition” may be serviceable for some situations where a calm ordering of the facts is not possible, it is certainly not desirable as a basis for determining a person’s character. There are simply too many ways to destroy a person’s reputation through lies, and too much value in a good reputation, to let it be decided by hearsay and well-intended but ill-informed “intuition.” For that the more precise instruments of truth are required. You would want that if it was your own reputation on the line, wouldn’t you?