Here's the scenario: A team works together with regular meetings involving many of them in a variety of ways. The team's leader is present at all or almost all the "major" meetings, the ones where issues deemed important are discussed and decided. The team always has the same leader for an eight-year period.
Over time, the team changes some of its members, but the power structure and the relationship of power remains the same: the same leader in every arena.
Now if team members start getting investigated, then indicted, charged and finally convicted of having committed crimes, what does that say about the team's leader? What if of a group of around 65 members you were told about 48 have been investigated and some 30 have been found guilty of a crime? What do you say about the team leader then, when almost half of his team have been found guilty of illegal actions?
You'd say the leader was guilty too.
You'd have to, because to a large degree, he hand-picked every team member. He worked with all of them on a daily basis. He set policies, made decisions, gave them orders and demanded results. If you say he didn't do any of those things, because then that leaves the leader open to being guilty of the illegalities of his team, then he wasn't a leader: he was an impostor, a fake, a fraud and an obvious waste of space.
If you say the leader doesn't necessarily have to know what every team member is doing at every moment, then you're either näive or willfully blind, for in a team where 2/3 of the members are acting suspiciously and almost half are clearly beyond "a reasonable doubt," then a leader who can't see it is näive or willfully blind. If the leader was näive, he was an impostor, a fake, a fraud and an obvious waste of space. If he was willfully blind, then the leader is guilty.
If you say the team members acted without orders or knowledge of the leader, then the leader was an impostor, a fake, a fraud and an obvious waste of space. If the members acted against orders from the leader, then the ignorance of the leader and/or his inaction marks him as an impostor, a fake, a fraud, an obvious waste of space and an accessory to the crimes committed.
It would seem that the current defense of "I didn't know" leaves no choice but to declare this impostor, this fake, this fraudulently obvious waste of space the "Stupidest Governor in Puerto Rico's 513-Year History." But it doesn't wash. Any way you look at it, the level of illegal activity shown in Pedro "Guilty" Rosselló's misadministration leaves no doubt--none whatsoever--that he, the leader of a team that now spends plenty of its days behind bars, should be joining them there.
The Jenius Has Spoken.