Firstly, an affirmative claim that this is brazen corruption, without even the slightest qualifier, is not suspicion or even accusation, either of which would allow for the potential of exoneration.That is not a reasonable standard. You're demanding ironclad proof... It is not reasonable to be - as you have been - contemptuous of the suspicion or even accusation of impropriety given the available data.
I am not asking for proof, I am asking for reason. If you'd like to consider possible standards here, lets go with the three most significant legal standards:
1. At one end, there is probable cause. I would say we agree that there is something akin to probable cause to look into the potential for corruption.
2. At the other end, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which I would say we agree is an unreasonable standard.
3. In between those, there is the preponderance of evidence, where you'd say given what we know that something is just more likely than not. I don't think we are even close to this for the claim of brazen corruption. Though it is a somewhat subjective standard, which is why someone like Silvanus claims so many things Trump does are mal-intentioned, because his worldview says it's more likely in any given moment that Trump is trying to do bad things, whether or not there is evidence of it.
