Provided that: Trump is allowed to, without ever disclosing any evidence, presume people to be immigrants, and then to also presume them to be illegal, until proven innocent, sending them to prison camps in the meantime, often without ever giving them any effective trial at any point; then I can likewise presume him guilty of these crimes until and unless he's proven innocent too.

The difference is my presumption of guilt does not (and will not) result in him getting sent to a prison camp (unfortunately). Maybe you still think that is a realistic option if we just make sure to focus on the "right" evidence to eventually convict King Trump who hasn't already found half a dozen ways to prematurely pardon himself of all possible wrongdoing. I don't.

So you're simply not going to stop me from presuming him guilty. Go ahead and call me or anyone who is willing to believe this a "silly" "anti-trumper" if you want. It will just make you look like a disingenuous moron.

This is not a logical, rational debate between opposing and equally valid positions that will be resolved fairly by following a specific process. This is an ideological war against inhumanity and injustice, and all is fair in love and war. Trump is inhumane, Trump is unjust, and Trump is guilty, and I don't need any more evidence for any of that than the present reality has already provided. I am not a judge and this is not a trial, this is my personal opinion, and I will not relinquish my entitlement to it, thankyouverymuch.

Here's how I am taking it: they have tampered with evidence in a way that implicates him for all claims until evidence tampering is fully corrected.