I agree that the statements I highlighted aren't really "evidence" of corruption, just facts indicative of possible corruption. Corruption doesn't necessarily

I agree that the statements I highlighted aren't really "evidence" of corruption, just facts indicative of possible corruption. Corruption doesn't necessarily have to be the acceptance of a bribe, though. The dismissal or re-assignment of whistle-blowers that are pointing out potential dangers in the project IS corruption; it's the dishonest use of authority for personal benefit, or to avoid personal responsibility for wrong-doing or negligence. You're probably right, about the travel. 64 trips back and forth does sound like a punishment, and at ~5k per trip, it doesn't really sound that extravagant. Certainly not enough to think they were lavish bribe-trips. Your last paragraph actually is a pretty good synopsis. This whole thing was probably a scramble to keep ahead of a badly managed project.