Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?

By on

Sometimes there can be smoke without fire, says Staffordshire University law student Naz Khan

In an age of ‘citizen’ journalism and rabid social media posts, the legal principle known as ‘the presumption of innocence’ is seriously under threat. The presumption, enshrined in the UK’s Human Rights Act, is a fundamental principle of our criminal law system. It is one that is so well-known, even to those who have little knowledge of our legal system, and yet appears to be so poorly upheld. Individuals are repeatedly condemned in the eyes of the public regardless of whether they have been in the eyes of the law.

Back in 2014, BBC News reported that Cliff Richard was being investigated by the police following an allegation of sexual assault on a child dating back to the 1980s. A presumption of guilt and public vilification ensued despite the fact that Sir Cliff was never charged.

Michael Jackson has also been publicly challenged. In 2005, in California, the pop sensation was tried for several allegations of sexual assault of young boys but was acquitted of all charges. However, he is still widely considered and branded a paedophile by sections of the media and public. Serious new allegations against the late popstar have surfaced too late for Jackson to face justice for a second time.

Meanwhile, R. Kelly, another American singer, songwriter and producer has recently been charged with sexually assaulting various teenage girls after a history of sexually-related charges and allegations of a sex ‘cult’.

The presumption of innocence, an integral part of the right to a fair trial, exists as a guarantee of an individual’s innocence if and until they can be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. And as we all know, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. But the presumption is systematically ignored as the cases of Sir Cliff, Jackson and many others demonstrate. The media publishes names, and commentators on social media defame.

Sir Cliff had the resources and wherewithal to fight back. In 2018, in the case of Cliff Richard v BBC and SYP, he recovered substantial damages from the BBC and the police force concerned for the investigation and making it public.

The decision in the Cliff Richard case reignited calls for legislation to protect suspects, to protect the presumption: a private members’ bill, the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill, was debated in the House of Lords last month. The Bill proposes to make it unlawful to name individuals at the ‘suspect’ stage, that is, before they have been charged. Some argue that the case and any legislation that followed would unduly curtail press freedom and obstruct the public’s right to know.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg has argued that such a law would encourage “secret arrests” and “would amount to a major change in the criminal justice system in England and Wales”. He said: “The solution is not to confine news of arrests to the internet rumour-mill”, but rather it is for the public to understand that “sometimes there can be smoke without fire”.

The counter-argument, however, is that there needs to be greater understanding of the effect that such reports can have on a person’s life: damaging reputations, livelihoods, the effect on immediate family, on personal health: the 78-year-old Sir Cliff reported ill-health following the allegations — including shingles and insomnia. He also acknowledges now a paranoia with being seen associating with young people and avoids having any photographs together.

When the public take on the role of adjudicator in matters of suspected criminality, the large brands feel pressure to react accordingly. Certain radio stations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK have pulled Michael Jackson’s music from airing in the wake of Leaving Neverland, a film documenting serious allegations of sexual abuse against the popstar. In response to the ongoing R. Kelly scandal, Spotify has removed his music from their playlists. Thus we see corporations too taking on the unofficial role of judge. Through protecting their brand image, these corporations cast judgment upon criminal allegations when a court of law has yet to do so.

While a court of law is susceptible to error, surely it would be better to leave the responsibility of apportioning blame to it rather than to public opinion. A court of law is designed with this purpose in mind, decisions based on evidence rather than emotion. Of course, public opinion does have a role to play in raising awareness surrounding certain topics, including that of sexual abuse, but “mob justice” has no checks to ensure impartiality and little or no power to verify the credibility of alleged truths.

Naz Khan is a final year undergraduate law student at Staffordshire University and an LLM candidate at Durham University. Upon completion of his masters, he aspires to work as a barrister.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

Please bear in mind that the authors of many Legal Cheek Journal pieces are at the beginning of their career. We'd be grateful if you could keep your comments constructive.



The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is of course sacrosanct. However, rightly in my view, it applies only to the criminal trial process. An acquittal in a criminal trial does not stand as a bar to subsequent civil proceedings nor, in my view, should it apply to a decision about who I invite to dinner or chose to be rude about on the internet.

We all take on the ‘unofficial role of the judge’ in many aspects of our lives. In our choice of friends, partners and purchases. Generally it is not harmful.

I take your point about mob rule – the internet has its downside.


The presumption of innocence applies in civil matters to, it is just that the burden of proof is lower. Its still down to the claimant to prove their case though.


You’re right insofar as there is a burden of proof at trial. However I’d say there are a few important differences between the criminal presumption of innocence and the civil burden of proof:

First, if a civil Defendant does not directly address something in his defence, he is taken as admitting the fact. The Claimant does not have to prove it.
Second, if there is no defence, the Claimant is entitled to judgment in default. The Claimant need prove nothing to get that judgment.
Third, the availability of interim remedies (which may, once obtained, mean that a case in reality need go no further) means that a Claimant could get significant relief without proving anything.

I think the presumption of innocence is a uniquely criminal concept.


The term ‘presumption of innocence’ is used only for criminal cases, but the concept applies to all cases, its just that the burden of proof is different. The examples you give where a claimant doesn’t have to provide proof are all cases where the claim isn’t contested (incidentally I think its wrong of the courts to give judgement in default where no defence is lodged).


Nonsense. That is simply the burden of proof. Not them same thing.


Different burden of proof, same concept.


It really really isn’t. Burden of proof is almost never decisive. Balance of probabilities; very different indeed from beyond reasonable doubt. Low burden on claimant, high burden on defendant.


It really, really, really is. Its just different burdens of proof. Ths concept is the same – the burden of proof is on the claimant. Try raising a contested civil claim with no evidence and see how far you get.


Believe me I’ve run enough civil claims to know what I’m talking about. At trial in a civil matter, the incidence of the burden of proof is almost never decisive. The judge just decides what was more likely. A million miles from beyond reasonable doubt.


You’re agreeing with me. The burden of proof is still there, but is different from criminal cases. It is indeed balance of probabilities, so of course the judge will decide what is more likely to have happened. But its still for the claimant to prove their case on the civil burden of proof. So the concept of innocent until proven guilty still exists, just the terminology and burden of proof differ from the criminal courts. Its certainly not a million miles away. If you’ve run as many civil cases as you say you have (and run them properly), you’ll know what is likely to happen if you as claimant offer no supporting evidence in a disputed civil claim.


What a disgrace


I think you are conflating two different terms. The standard of proof is different in criminal cases (significantly higher) from that in civil cases(balance). The concept of burden of proof is the same throughout. It falls on different parties depending on who sues in civil courts/who is charged&tried in criminal courts.
Good article.

cathryn watters

this is such a good article – sadly though we also have the civil standard of law causing as much harm within regulation of our health care professionals. “The balance of probabilities” is open to a lack of objectivity and interpretation also if the “defendant” is not able to get any evidence to support their innocence then the balance is that they are guilty. Press releases are given prior to the case being proven and only a statement will be released after the person is found innocent if they request it – they do not know this is an option so don’t request it thus the media has them proven as guilty forever. EVERYONE has a duty to protect the innocent. It seems criminals have more protection that our healthcare professionals currently.

Margo neilly

Yes I echo that, many lives are being destroyed through years and years of civil proceedings which are costly and damaging to those unfortunate to be trapped in them. And they do trap and consume lives. It becomes and impossible to recover from the harm sensational publicity causes. Regulators are required in all professions and most especially in health care. However they need be fit for purpose and really need to care better for nurses that are subject to their investigation and sanction.


Yes, I wonder whether the civil standard of proof is really a high enough threshold when one’s career is in the balance. To many people treat it as a situation where the accused is expected to prove their innocence.


Our earth is dying!!!

End capitalism now!!!

Vote Corbyn!!


The year is 2027. After the release of chemical weapons in a major US city the year beforehand resulting in the deaths of approximately 770,000, the world is very much at the brink of nuclear war. In retaliation US president Peyton Manning has already authorised a number of strikes against targets in Yemen, Mali, and Australia. It is argued that such strikes were not justified, and in themselves killed an estimated 35,000 civilians. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?


Straw man argument.


You f*cking maniac.


Yes. Do you want to come round to my flat for a glass of Ribena and a slice of carrot cake?


Only if we can do so in the nude


Of course my darling. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I might wear one sock though. On my left hand.


Righty hoo.

That’s a great start, but you need to develop the characters more. For example, what was the motivation behind Bernard Manning’s successful run for the Oval Office?

And then there’s verisimilitude. You’ll need to work on the narrative connection between Mali and Hobart.

Good luck. But it’s not one for us.

Senior Managing Partner at Kirkland, Swain and Gotshal

As someone already noted, the presumption of innocence has more to do with legal standards and the presumptions taken in a court of law than they do in the public sphere.

The general public generally doesn’t see people as ‘either’ innocent or guilty and generally don’t have an active presumption as to whether someone is one or the other. People operate on a spectrum.

Also, the majority of the time that this ever matters is in regard to famous people. I think that is/and should be the cost of being so. You have a duty not to lie to the people who revere you. Mob rule is unfortunate collateral.

Where the layman/regular people are concerned, I agree the position should be that names are hidden at trial. The public have no right to know and, given the damages faced by wrongly accused individuals in the past, this is not outweighed by the public’s right to be informed. As such, the solution is to either (i) hide the identity or (ii) ensure that evidence, news etc is disseminated accurately to the public such that they actually have the capacity to judge. Given that (ii) is, in the current state of sensationalist news headlines and generally crap reporting all round, I agree that (i) must be the answer.

Good article, good luck on your LLM.


A really good article.

What would be useful to understand is why anonymity is not proposed to be granted to a suspect until their conviction, rather than charge?

Rightfully, victims of offences such as rape have anonymity for life. However, a suspect can be wrongly accused, arrested, charged, tried and then acquitted – only for their life to have been turned upside down.

If a judge believed that there were grounds to lift the veil of anonymity in a particular case, they could then do so.


Victims and witnesses are granted anonymity in circumstances where they might not otherwise come forward. In other words, as an exception to the general rule of open justice, they are granted anonymity for public not private benefit- so that justice is not obstructed. A defendant will be tried whether or not he or she is anonymous – there’s no public interest to keeping them anonymous.

Imo it’s important for everyone, including those accused of crimes, that justice continues to be open. Closed proceedings and secret trials are not good for defendants! Everyone should be able to scrutinise the justice system.


Open justice doesn’t require the publication of names, addresses, etc.

During trial, the press could refer to the suspect as Mr/Ms A and then, at conclusion of the trial, the veil could be lifted if the defendant was found guilty/the judge felt it was actually in the public interest.

In the current system, where one can be arrested and named immediately, it goes to the heart of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty as Google becomes the main source of anyone’s background.

Lord Titmuss Wall Banger of Etherbridge

You can walk into (almost) any trial anyway and find out the name of the accused pretty easily.

Transparency and due process.

There to benefit the accused as well.


Open justice means that trials and evidence are a matter of public record. It’s not exactly open if it’s a secret who was on trial.


I think we need to transition to a low carbon economy

I think we need socialism

I think we need JEREMY CORBYN

Tax City greed at 75% income tax!!



This shows a complete misunderstanding about “innocent until proven guilty” and sadly one that is getting too much traction these days. The presumption is no wider than this, in criminal proceedings, and only in criminal proceedings, the court presumes innocence and will require that allegations are proved against the defendant to the requisite standard by the prosecution until which time the defendant is not treated as having committed the crime. Beyond that the concept has no application. If someone wants to act on the basis that an accused or someone under investigation is a criminal then they can, and if the “criminal” wants recourse he/she needs to look to contract, tort or public law to find a basis for the same.


Its a common misconception that innocent until proven guilty applied only to criminal matters. The concept of the accuser/complainant having to prove their case applies across the board, only the terminology differs.


No. It is just an evidential presumption in criminal proceedings. If requirements to establish facts before action are needed in other situations they are called different things because they are different things. Imprecision is a terrible quality for a lawyer.


Yes. The terminology is different but the concept is the same. Onus is on the accuser/claimant to make their case. As a lawyer I’m surprised you don’t know that. Imprecision isn’t a quality, but stupidity is worse.


Except it isn’t, in that one can usually treat the other party as a wrongdoer without the need for a determination, save in some limited categories. It is only if there is a need for determination prior to a remedy that burden of proof issues are engaged.


Except that it is. If the matter is contested then the claimant will of course have to prove their case to the civil standard of proof.


But within the civil rights framework one can act on the basis someone is a wrongdoer without establishing it. You don’t need to go to court to establish it. So ‘if the matter is contested’ ignores the wider issue which is at the heart of this turd of an article.


“He who asserts must prove”.


Exactly, ‘he asserts must prove’. Its as simple as that. One can act act on the basis that someone is a wrongdoer in the same way that one can act on the basis that someone is the tooth fairy – doesn’t necessarily make it true.


But darlings, one does not have to “assert” if one can act without recourse to civil litigation. I can treat Mr X as a criminal if I want to and deal with him on that basis in my business dealings. I don’t have to consider him innocent until I have proved him guilty or anyone has proved him guilty.


You do have to assert, and it has to be independently proven, or he isn’t a criminal. You can treat people like criminals if you want to or you can treat them that way in your business dealings, but that would be mere eccentricities on your part, it wouldn’t make the person a criminal.

Ciaran Goggins

Jefferies is a poor case to cite, he changed his alibi, publicly, in a high profile murder case. As for anonymity, all it takes is a challenge at Strasbourg. I was to meet with Lord Paddick on my last trip to England.


He is finishing his LLB at Staffordshire university and doing an LLB at Durham, how is this a difficult concept to grasp?


I think you mean LLM


You do not make it easier by introducing the second LLB in the picture


Well-written article on a pressing issue in today’s society.

Good luck on your LLM.


As long as you’ve got the qualifying LLB next to your name it doesn’t matter where you have obtained it 🤷‍♀️


I am entitled to conclude on the available evidence that you have misunderstood the concept of the presumption of innocence in law and that your arguments are superficial. Just as I am entitled to conclude on the available evidence that Michael Jackson was a paedophile.
However, my personal view on such matters is different from a trial process that requires, in crime, that the state, in the form of the Crown, prove it’s case so that a jury are sure of guilt. If the Crown do not do that then the accused is to be acquitted. That’s the presumption of innocence.


Exactly, Andrew. Only the inane and superficial yell “innocent until proven guilty” outside of the criminal courtroom.


You and the inane and superficial anonymous at 10.03pm have musunderstood the concept of innocent until proven guilty Andrew. The concept applies across the board, not just in criminal matters. You can of course draw whatever conclusions you wish about given cases, but these are merely your opinions and have no factual bearings on guilt.


Good article. The presumption of innocence is something the scope of which is widely misunderstood (as some of the comments here show, even by a lot of lawyers). It is gradually being worn down by i) politicians who want to be seen to be tough on crime looking for easy convictions, ii) gender warriors who can’t accept that males accused of sex crimes might be innocent (see the article about the magistrate’s tweets earlier this week), iii) bullying claimant lawyers who think if they shout their case loud enough that makes it true and iv) people who think they can reach a conclusion without logic or evidence, and who haven’t been taught to take opposing viewpoints and arguments on board.


Sometimes there isn’t even smoke, never mind fire. The problem is that there are some people who are wired in a way that they believe an allegation if they see it in writing, especially if it fits preconceived ideas they might have. They tend to seek information supporting the allegation and dismiss any information which doesn’t support the allegation. People are worried about not ‘believing’ allegations which might be true in case they look stupid or are seen as in some way to be supporting he thing that the person is accused of.


If I think Mr X is a criminal I can treat him as a criminal in my contracts, my business dealings etc. I don’t have to care about “innocent until proven guilty” and I don’t have to go near a court so burdens of proof are irrelevant. That is why most of the bleatings on this thread are just tosh of the highest order. If Mr X does not like it he can sue me. Keep “innocent until proven guilty” where it belongs, in criminal courts and only there.


Innocent until proven guilty applies across the board, not just in criminal courts. You’re entitled to assume that its ‘irrelelevant tosh’, but doing so will mean people are likely to think the same of your opinions. You are of course perfectly free to write baseless contracts accusing people of being criminals or to treat your business partners as criminals for no reason, but these would be acts grounded in fantasy and not reality.


You can;t reason with the type of stupid. You know they stupid ones that don’t know they are dim.

Lawyer X

There are a number of good reasons to publish the name of a suspect prior to conviction: sometimes it is necessary to publish the name of the suspect in order to catch him/her. See any “most wanted” list, or the current story about the kidnap/rape allegations in East London. It is also sometimes necessary in order to protect the public: dangerous suspect on the loose – do not approach type publicity.


There are other good reasons not to:

Vigilante justice
Mistaken identity
Reputation damaged forever even if vindicated later “no smoke without fire…”

Archibald Pomp O'City

I truly can’t imagine what people like Cliff Richard must have gone through. Shingles and insomnia? I’d probably have hung myself from a tree by day 5.


Should the US president be considered innocent if Mueller refused to reach a conclusion?

ONE… I believe that if anyone has read the Mueller Report he or she would not need to ask a question regarding the president’s illegal conduct. However, I recognised that many would not have read the Report. In congress on 10/06/2019, Barbara McQuade, a district attorney said, “I am confident that if anyone other than a sitting president committed this conduct that person would be charged with crimes.” On that basis alone, even the most ardent believer in the unassailability of the Trump presidency should pause, and be a little sceptical about their belief system and in their belief that the president was completely innocent. And perhaps, find out more.

TWO… It has been asked why some people mentioned in the report were prosecuted and yet the president wasn’t. If he too was guilty of a crime he would have been prosecuted just as the others were, right? Therefore, I take it that it is believed that because he was not prosecuted he must be innocent of any crime.

THREE… But, the premise of the statement, which requires or expects a list of a declaration of illegality in respect of the president is wrong in respect of the Mueller Report, and below I will explained why. The reasons why Robert Mueller felt he was unable to say if the president committed crimes (even if there was plenty of evidence he did) is laid out in the first couple of pages of Volume II of the Report.

FOUR… Robert Mueller was not acting as a traditional prosecutor, but as a fact finder. He was acting as a fair minded, nonpartisan fact finder who was subject to the rules of the Department of Justice (DOJ). In fact, Robert Mueller is a republican, despite the president alleging otherwise.

FIVE… Robert Mueller was working for the DOJ; and so was constrained by the rules of the DOJ. Those rules or guidelines held that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. And furthermore, Robert Mueller said, if a president cannot be indicted he therefore cannot have his day in court to fight the allegations, so as a matter of fairness therefore, he refused to say that the president did anything illegal. If a president cannot be prosecuted it must follow and it would be unfair to say he should be indicted. By the same logic it would similarly be unfair or wrong to say that he did things that were illegal, because again, he will not appear in court to defend himself against just the allegation he acted illegally.

SIX… The president keeps on disparaging Robert Mueller and his team, but the report goes out of its way to be absolutely fair, and if anything, some might say, too fair to the president, because he did not say the president was guilty of crimes, specifically.

SEVERN… Technically, in law, it is not for a prosecutor, even Robert Mueller, to state as a fact that a person has done something that is illegal. What a prosecutor does is to say to a court that these are the facts, the evidence; motivation etc that he believes proves that a person acted unlawfully. The defence attorney then argues his client did not break the law. Then those in court listening to these arguments decide if a person is guilty, or acted illegally.

EIGHT… In law, the only entities that have the right to determine if a person did in fact act illegally, or criminally, contrary to the law, is a court. Specifically, that would be either a judge sitting alone or a jury. No one else can come to a definitive conclusion that a person acted illegally or is guilty of a crime. Certainly a prosecutor cannot declare a person is guilty of a crime, certainly not Robert Mueller. That’s the system, that how it works generally, and even more so if the DOJ guidelines prohibited Robert Mueller making such a declaration in respect of the president.

NINE… Volume II of the Report deals with facts relating the possible obstruction of justice. In the interests of fairness and clarity, Mr. Mueller sets out both the facts as a prosecutor might present them in court. And then, in the interests of fairness he set out any countervailing facts, evidence or law that may be used by a defence attorney to try to argue against the evidence the prosecutor has presented.

TEN… Mr. Mueller sets out all the legal elements of obstruction of justice that any prosecutor would have to prove. That analysis spans from pages 9 to 14 in Volume II. I shall not repeat it here.

ELEVEN… Then he sets out the evidence that could be used to argue that the president did in fact obstruct justice. Similarly, as a matter of fairness to the president, he lays out possible arguments a defence attorney may use that he did not.

TWELVE… He lays out 11 instances of different instances in which the evidence could lead someone (a jury or congress for example) to believe that the president did obstruct justice. Indeed, he said, if he could have (see Volume II page 2 “Fourth…”) cleared the president of the crime of obstruction he would have. He would have exonerated him if he could not find evidence of obstruction. If there was no evidence or not enough evidence, as per Volume I, he would have said so. That must mean that he did find evidence of obstruction, and he said, it was now up to the congress to look at the evidence he has collated, as that is their job. It is not the job of this prosecutor to claim the president did in fact obstruct justice, because, he cannot, the DOJ rules he is working under does not allow him to.

THIRTEEN… To most people, who wanted a definitive answer to the question, did the president obstruct justice or not, Robert Mueller’s approach was unsatisfactory. However, his report will leave most people who have taken the time to have read it with no doubt that but for the fact that the person in question was the sitting president, and therefore could not be indicted, anyone else who had done the acts Mr Mueller set out in his report, or similar such acts, would have been indicted and the prosecutor in any other case would have taken the case to court. It could be argued is there duty for every citizen to read the report and understand what it lays out, as this question is central to the proper functioning of U.S. democracy and its Constitution.

FOURTEEN… Indeed, 1,000 federal prosecutors, both republican and democrats have signed a declaration that states, but for the fact that this person was a sitting president, they would have indicted him. Indeed, there are a number of instances, amongst the 11 possible instances of obstruction that have no defence whatsoever or very little countervailing facts to oppose the facts that clearly set out that the president acted criminally. These 1,000 prosecutors would be confident that a court would find that the president did indeed commit the crime of obstruction of justice, if he was a regular citizen or as president the rules allowed his prosecution.

FIFTEEN… Attorney General William Barr said in respect of obstruction of justice that because the Mueller report did not find enough evidence to prove to the very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt that the president committed the crime of conspiracy, i.e. with the Russians, then there couldn’t be the crime of obstruction.

SIXTEEN… That is wrong in law, and the Attorney General now faces accusations that he is acting not as an independent attorney but as an arm of the executive branch, i.e. he is working for the president as his defence attorney. Indeed, you may have heard that Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstruction of justice and served 5 months in prison and fined $30,000. In fact, the whole point of the charge of obstruction is to stop people destroying evidence and such like, so that they are not found guilty of the crime they are trying to hide. If obstruction needed proof of a crime to be charged then that would incentivised people to go to extraordinary lengths to hide crimes. Only those who were incompetent at hiding their crimes could be prosecuted. The type of thinking that there must be guilt of an underlying crime is nonsense, clearly. Obstruction does not need proof that rises to beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, a crime that the obstructor is trying to hide.

SEVENTEEN… It should very much concern why the Trump team had so many contacts with Russian, whilst all the time lying about these contacts and hiding evidence and obstructing that investigation.

EIGHTEEN… Robert Mueller found lots of evidence that the Trump team had very many numerous contacts with Russians and people associated that government. Mike Fynn especially did so. Manafort was being paid millions by the Ukrainians, when it was a puppet government of the Russians and he owed money to a Russian Oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a friend of Putin. It should be noted (not in the Mueller report) that Deripaska was on the US sanctions list, but that has now been eased by the Trump government, because, it would seem, that he is investing in a large Aluminium smelting plant in Mitch McConnell’s state (corruption? I understand that is being looked into, but it doesn’t smell right).

NINETEEN… And, so did the president’s son and others in the team have contacts with Russia. There was the Trump Tower meeting in NY, which everyone denied initially and which in emails flag that the Russian government had dirt on the Clintons. And, Trump was trying to negotiate a Trump Tower in Moscow, right up to his election, even though he was denying this. Furthermore, Trump’s team were trying to set up communications with the Russian government via a secret line from the Russian Embassy.

TWENTY… OTHER CONCERNS… And, the education Secretary’s brother was involved in a meeting with the Russians and the UAE in the Seychelles. In March 2018, the story of this was beginning to emerge. Vanity Fair said, “The Washington Post reported on a secret meeting between representatives for the United Arab Emirates, Blackwater founder Erik Prince (Betsey Davos’s brother, she is now Trump’s Education Secretary; corruption?), and a Russian investor with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, which took place on a remote Seychelles island just days before Donald Trump’s inauguration. As we now know, the meeting was also arranged with the help of Nader, who the F.B.I. picked up at Dulles International Airport in January. ” In that meeting, it was reported, the United Arab Emirates were asking that Russia pull out of Iran. Mr Nadia became a cooperating witness in the Mueller investigation. Just recently, Mr Nadia re-entered the US and was arrested by the FBI for pedophilia. He has been convicted twice before for that crime.

TWENTY ONE… It was also reported that money of $2,000,000 was agreed for help with the Trump election. On George Nader’s phones that were seized by the FBI they found not only child pornography but also the telephone numbers of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia (who the CIA said ordered the murder and cutting up and disposal of Kamel Khashoggi’s body). So, ask yourselves the question, why was Trump’s first visit to Saudi Arabia? Why did he pull out of the Iran dealt and behaving in a way that could lead to another Middle Eastern war? Mueller my not have been able to prove conspiracy but, that does not mean that the US people should not be concerned. And, it appears that Robert Mueller was perhaps more kind to Mueller in respect of conspiracy. But, to say, that there was not evidence of conclusion (or conspiracy) is just not true. Mueller decided that he did not have enough evidence to say to the criminal standard, that the president committed a crime.

TWENTY TWO… There is a saying that it is better that 100 criminals walk free than one innocent person is locked up. It is my belief that Mueller erred on the side of caution, and therefore did not find the president guilty of criminal conspiracy. But, that does not mean the Trump team did not concluded with the Russians; Mueller did not assess collusion, despite what the president says. There was plenty of evidence that something untoward, dodgy, was going on.

TWENTY THREE… In my opinion, and that of 1,000 US prosecutors the evidence strongly suggests the president committed the crime of obstruction. However, that is not the only crime or at least very bad wrongdoing, the president has committed.

The president’s son-in-law could not get security clearance. Why? It is known that his businesses are sometimes cloaked in secrecy, and that Saudi money is involved. Does that compromise his decisions? The president overrode these objections and gave him clearance, despite denying he did so.

He is named as a co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case. Mr. Cohen is now in prison.

He scammed students in a University he set up, and agreed to settle, paying $25,000,000.

There is evidence of possible bank fraud.

TWENTY FOUR… There is evidence of possible tax fraud. He refuses to release his tax returns. Why?

There is evidence that the president used his charity foundation (other people provided the money for it, he paid nothing into it personally). He used other people’s charitable donations as his own personal bank account. NYPD is also looking into money laundering.

Many of his apartments in his properties have been brought with Russian money, and therefore Russians have been bankrolling his business indirectly.

The president’s son Eric Trump, a few years ago, admitted that they got most of their money from the Russians, he said, “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia”.

TWENTY FIVE… He lost $1 billion in the course of 10 years from 1985, bailed out in part by his father’s wealth.

His companies have been subject to bankruptcy several times.

December 2018 federal prosecutors in Manhattan and Brooklyn began investigating whether Middle Eastern foreigners sought to buy influence over American policies by using straw donors to illegally funnel donations to Trump’s inaugural committee. The Trump inaugural committee received a subpoena from federal prosecutors on February 4, 2019. The SDNY subpoena demanded a comprehensive array of documents involving the committee’s donors, finances, attendees and activities. The subpoena reportedly covered allegations of conspiracy to defraud the United States government, money laundering, false statements, mail and wire fraud, disclosure violations and prohibitions against contributions by foreign nations.

TWENTY SIX… And, recently Trump has blocked all cooperation with congress, which was the third Article of impeachment against president Nixon.

There are redactions in the Mueller report where possible wrongdoing that was found during the course of the investigation has been given to other law enforcement agencies to investigate. The only one that we definitely know about is the Michael Cohen case, Trump’s lawyer. The president in this one is declared a co-conspirator in a crime.

The alleged criminally is worrying. It should worry everyone.

Join the conversation