Okay, let's take a step back. Normally, I would ignore this and move on, but I kind of want to understand your perspective here.
Here's my view. We do all know what the laws are. We all know that conspiracy and fraud and so on aren't lawful, but how do we know whether he committed them or not? That's why we (or any society) have courts. Evidence is presented, arguments are made, witnesses are heard, and a jury determines guilty or not. I don't think any of that is controversial.
It seems to me as if you're saying that we shall all already know whether he's guilty or not of each charge, based on what we've seen in the news. Am I right, or am I missing your point?