> As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have diff

> As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have differing opinions about the same situation. Who appoints these "reasonable outside observers"? And who defines who or what is "corrupt"? It all just boils down to what you yourself view as corrupt or reasonable.