Props for selecting a horrible essay: Author reveals he has either no idea of or is able to apply essential public law and practical standard of evidentiary proof of guilt in the USA: reasonable doubt. The former chastises attys, the latter restrains jury. In deliberating the life or death of the accused, speculation about events (facts) which have not occurred produces an immoral justice.

Say Mueller reveals hard proof...
Say the entire right-wing media machine kicks...

Which is why, "I don't deal with hypotheticals," is an ancient US American atty joke about the adversarial role (for hire) at trial.

US standards of "due process" like much of constitutional backmatter ought to be understood in relation to "epistemological" history of rebellion against arbitrary, historical authorities of the English crown. But modern children don't get that tuition in political theory much less its practical application and results. Except O.J.!

Accordingly, Mueller obtained indictments with the evidence he has. None of this implicates Trump in the crimes charged to the indicted in point of fact --to be litigated (T, F)--- or findingsof law to be litigate (T, F).

Trial by press has no standard by comparison.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.