Establishing Presumption

Probable cause…

A common definition is “a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true”. Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public. Source, Wikipedia…

 

“Probable cause” is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test. Source, Wikipedia…

 

In view of the two above definitions, can any of them be reasonably applied to a President of the United States, or to any citizen for that matter. ‘I think John Doe is a crook’, the very statement is not enough for a conviction but is it enough for a dismissal? It may be if the scale of honesty has been set high enough, a requirement that does not allow any doubt no matter how slight. Confidence once won, then suddenly lost, can it be recaptured? Can once performed good deeds in the memory banks of knowledge, be cashed in to save one’s reputation from new transgressions? Probable cause is the standard that a grand jury uses to decide if a crime has been committed and we the people decided if further investigation is in order it may be followed by a trial. In short, under the umbrella of probable cause no one is safe form indictment, when the blind scale of justice is shifted to proving one is not guilty instead of proving one is innocent, may sound like the same thing but deep down inside they are not…As you can tell by now, I’m am not legalistically endowed…but merely opening the doors for some meaningful debate…so let us begin…you go first…