Case for 'PRESUMPTION of guilt' in cases of serious official obstruction of Justice, mandating summary justice and imprisonment of accused summarily.

I understand your objection, but I think you're arguing a different point than the one I made.

You're not really challenging the concept of presumption of innocence. You're challenging whether a legal system can function properly when a powerful accused person is able to influence, delay, frustrate, or potentially terminate investigations and prosecutions involving themselves.

That is a serious constitutional and political concern. Many legal scholars have argued that concentrated executive power can create tensions with accountability and the rule of law. Whether those concerns apply to Donald Trump in a particular instance is a matter of legal and factual debate.

Where I would disagree is on the conclusion that alleged obstruction creates a legal "presumption of guilt." In criminal law, the presumption of innocence exists precisely because the legal system does not permit guilt to be established by accusation, suspicion, public belief, or even highly incriminating evidence alone. The prosecution must still prove the case through legally recognized procedures. The burden remains on the state. [law.cornell.edu], [mad.uscourts.gov]

However, there is a separate and legitimate argument that:

• The public may reasonably infer that efforts to impede investigations can be evidence of consciousness of guilt.
• Obstruction allegations, if proven, may themselves be criminal conduct.
• Political accountability and legal accountability are distinct concepts.
• A system that allows powerful individuals to avoid adjudication may undermine public confidence in justice.

Those are arguments about the effectiveness, fairness, and legitimacy of institutions. They are not the same thing as a legal presumption of guilt.

You are also entitled, as a citizen, to form the view that publicly available evidence is convincing and that prosecutors should pursue charges. Many people hold strong views about Trump, both positive and negative. The legal question remains whether admissible evidence proves specific offenses under applicable law, while the political question is whether institutions have acted adequately in response to the allegations.

So I wouldn't characterize your position as irrational. It's a critique of whether equal justice is possible when immense political power is involved. But legally, even if one believes an accused person has obstructed justice, that does not replace the presumption of innocence that courts apply in criminal proceedings. [thelegalguide.org], [law.cornell.edu]