For me the reality that Acosta was and is not in a position where he needs to lie or obscure to explain his actions, that nothing he has done as AG is illegal,

For me the reality that Acosta was and is not in a position where he needs to lie or obscure to explain his actions, that nothing he has done as AG is illegal, there are no motions against him, there are better lies he could have told and that the AG (and Secretary of Labor) was not a criminal in this case leads me to believe him as a witness. It's not clear to me what kind of further evidence you think should be necessary beyond witness testimony in this case, or what kind of standard this would apply to justice system in general. It's also difficult because - for instance - paper records such as the AG's inbox are missing. Is there specific evidence you believe is readily available but that hasn't been forthcoming?