The Heir's done further thinking on how to continue to pursue justice against Trump, along with his superiors among big tech and Ed Snowden.  He's wondering whether it's time to revisit the presumption of innocence till proven guilty.  For 98% of the population it's still the right and valid approach.  It's those 2% who will exploit the concept, so that you don't have justice, but instead injustice.  That's why you have the Court Of Public Opinion, which if you went by the book with things like presumption of innocence and protection against double jeopardy, the Court Of Public Opinion would be considered a form of mob rule.  If this is a concern about democracy the progressives have, the Heir would appreciate it if they specifically said so.  But if you have a 2%-er play the system in such a way to get a get out of free jail card, and there are no options left in the system proper to pursue justice with, how can you possibly *not* go to the Court Of Public Opinion at that point?  Maybe that's what elections are about, but let's say the elections don't work as the progressives fear.  The Heir's wondering why you *shouldn't* take a guilty before proven innocent approach with a 2%-er who's gotten his get out of jail free card.  Maybe there's something in the Federalist Papers about it, but the Heir has yet to get his copy of the Papers back from Marco's grandmother.  Now Paul Manafort's in jail, Roger Stone the Heir thinks is awaiting sentencing, and Jeffrey Epstein is dead, so there aren't any immediate test cases in which the Heir can apply his don't-spare-the-rod-don't-spoil-the-child approach with.  Not even Trump yet until the election.  After that the Heir intends to have a plan B up his sleeve no matter what the progressives say or think or do about it.  He's feeling better already, but maybe this is the reason why the progressives went bat poop in 2006.  They may have felt they had no choice after 2004.

"Stay tuned."