Actually, they work on innocent until proven guilty.
Given that for Trump to be guilty of mishandling of classified documents, he would have to have not declassified them, the burden then rests on the prosecution to prove that he did not declassify them.
So, where's your proof such a memo did not exist?
Further, given the President isn't required to give all orders in writing, where's your proof he did not make a verbal declaration of such?
That is some incredibly roundabout, shoddy logic.
The proof that such a memo did not exist is that such memo can not be produced.
The accusation was that he was in possession of classified documents. There is no evidence that these documents were declassified. The prosecution has to prove that the documents were classified, which is exceptionally easy, due to documentation.
The prosecution has evidence that the documents are classified. Trump has no evidence that the documents were declassified...
We can get down to if there was a verbal order or not, which becomes a much more difficult situation but even in that case, there ARE witness accounts that no such verbal order was given and there is no such record of any order being given.
Expected. The defendant testifying is historically a bad idea, even when (especially) they are innocent.
As much I generally dislike Trump, I agree here. There's really no benefit to the defendant testifying. In damn near every case, the defendant should shut up and not say a word. Let the lawyers talk.
