John Locher / AP

Given that the low road seems to be the only route on his moral map, it’s no surprise that Donald Trump is presuming Hillary Clinton is guilty of wrongdoing involving her emails.

But it’s slimy behavior, nonetheless, and completely inappropriate for a candidate for president of a nation whose citizens are guaranteed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Trump may later claim he meant otherwise — he’s good at crafting his own reality — but here’s what he said about the latest development surrounding the FBI and Clinton’s emails:

"We can be sure that what is in those emails is absolutely devastating, and I think we're going to find out, by the way, for the first time.”

Oh, we can be sure the messages are “absolutely devastating”?

And how exactly can we make that determination?

FBI Director James Comey certainly hasn’t given that indication. In a letter to congressional lawmakers last week, Comey merely said the emails “appear to be pertinent” to the investigation. He followed up with an internal memo later saying the FBI didn’t “know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails.”

If the FBI is sitting on a mountain of evidence against Clinton, Comey sure wasn’t suggesting it.

But that didn’t stop Trump from condemning Clinton.

Then again, Trump has proven that he’s eager to jump to conclusions and buy into a lunatic conspiracy if it helps further his political goals. For proof, look no further than the years he spent promoting the whack-job notion that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

The sad thing about Trump’s statement is that he could have made a strong point while also taking the high road. A reasonable, responsible person might have simply applauded Comey and said the situation offered affirmation about the credibility of the justice system. The statement could have ended with a zinger like, “I’m confident my opponent will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if found to have committed any wrongdoing.”

The key there is the word “if.”

But that’s not Donald Trump, who punctuated one of the three presidential debates by telling Clinton he would order his attorney general to direct a special prosecutor to investigate her. When Clinton countered by saying it's good that someone of Trump’s temperament wasn’t in a leadership position, Trump interjected, “because you’d be in jail.”

Terrific. That’s what dictators do to their rivals. Kim Jong-un probably got a good chuckle out of Trump’s remark.

But here in a country that embraces the rule of law, it’s a huge leap from emails that “appear to be pertinent” to guilt and a jail sentence.

That’s especially true in light of the fact that Comey announced in July that he wouldn’t recommend charges in connection with the FBI’s investigation into the emails. At that time, he said he didn’t think a prosecutor would press a case.

There’s nothing at the moment to suggest anything will come out of the review of the new emails. In fact, if there’s someone who is eventually held accountable for it, it might be Comey, whose actions have come under fire from a number of prosecutors, leaders and political analysts.

Comey, who went against longstanding precedent for the Justice Department not to take action on politically sensitive investigations within 60 days of elections, may have abused his office. Or, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has contended, he may have violated Hatch Act provisions barring government employees from engaging in partisan politics.

Meanwhile, Clinton, who’s scheduled to appear today in Las Vegas, has taken the high road. She’s admitted she made a mistake in using a private email server as secretary of state, and she’s called on authorities to release what they know about the new emails.

That’s being a responsible leader, something Trump would know nothing about.