Why has the Washington Post continually reported as if Trump is guilty of something?

I have seen a lot of pathetic stories from Washington Post, since it has been targeting Trump every day, but this piece by Philip Rucker is one of the most wretched:

"Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble," Trump tweeted over the weekend.  He added: "Sorry, I don't see Michael doing that."

By asserting that the government would not be able to "flip" Cohen, Trump invited a question: If the Russia probe is the "witch hunt" the president says it is – and if he is as innocent as he so often proclaims – what incriminating evidence would Cohen have on Trump that would give him leverage to flip?

It was only the latest instance of the president adopting a posture vis-a-vis his legal troubles that is both combative and defensive – and, perhaps unwittingly, seems to assume guilt.

I've got a few questions for the Washington Post:

Why have you reported as if Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians for almost eighteen months when there has been absolutely zero evidence that this is true?

Why have the FBI and Justice Department been so slow in producing evidence if there is nothing to hide?

Does the Post think Michael Cohen's office would have been raided if he weren't Trump's attorney?

Why do journalists act as if the raid had nothing to do with Trump?

Why did Obama's justice Department spy on a political opponent based on a garbage dossier funded by Democrats?

Why did Hillary and her aides dump emails and destroy computers and other equipment if they weren't intentionally violating the law?

Why did Obama and Hillary create the fake story of the video if they weren't guilty of gross negligence in Benghazi?

I have seen a lot of pathetic stories from Washington Post, since it has been targeting Trump every day, but this piece by Philip Rucker is one of the most wretched:

"Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble," Trump tweeted over the weekend.  He added: "Sorry, I don't see Michael doing that."

By asserting that the government would not be able to "flip" Cohen, Trump invited a question: If the Russia probe is the "witch hunt" the president says it is – and if he is as innocent as he so often proclaims – what incriminating evidence would Cohen have on Trump that would give him leverage to flip?

It was only the latest instance of the president adopting a posture vis-a-vis his legal troubles that is both combative and defensive – and, perhaps unwittingly, seems to assume guilt.

I've got a few questions for the Washington Post:

Why have you reported as if Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians for almost eighteen months when there has been absolutely zero evidence that this is true?

Why have the FBI and Justice Department been so slow in producing evidence if there is nothing to hide?

Does the Post think Michael Cohen's office would have been raided if he weren't Trump's attorney?

Why do journalists act as if the raid had nothing to do with Trump?

Why did Obama's justice Department spy on a political opponent based on a garbage dossier funded by Democrats?

Why did Hillary and her aides dump emails and destroy computers and other equipment if they weren't intentionally violating the law?

Why did Obama and Hillary create the fake story of the video if they weren't guilty of gross negligence in Benghazi?