My concern is when you say it's “almost understood”. That could be left wide open. It's almost a presumption of guilt prior to proving that anything has been done wrong. I would like to think we have some kind of proof. It's almost like you would have to prove there's something wrong. What is the role of the prosecutors? Can you explain it? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't really make much sense. You're proving guilty prior to having any proof.
On October 26th, 2009. See this statement in context.