What you have said is, in theory, correct. There are, however, cases that cast a lot of doubt on how that theory is actually applied in practice. Naturally we probably only notice outliers, but those outliers *do* exist, so there is a definite chance that the judge could take a large number of years to decide that he's "unpersuadable".
Now the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" also has a large number of counter-examples, especially when the accused is being accused of something that most people consider horrendous. In fact, if the accusation is vile enough, many people won't even consider whether the evidence has any validity, or whether it could have been faked, or....well, much of any mitigating factor. He is being accused of obstruction of justice, which may or many not be true, and he will be punished extensively before there's ever a trial at which he, presumably, will have a fair defense. Many, however, never receive a fair defense, or even an only moderately poor defense. And even if he's found not guilty he will already have been punished extensively.
I don't know what an ideal way of handling things would be, but don't fantasize that we in the US have something even coming close to something fair to those who are poor or unpopular.