I think the original discussion was about honesty. It seems fully apparent that issue has been laid to rest with dozens of examples. Now you want to talk about whether they are guilty.
Honesty and legal guilt are two different standards. They have clearly been dishonest. In my opinion they have pushed past the boundaries of propriety in their public statements, emails, and verbal commentary to shareholders both in private and at SHMs.
If you want to believe in their lacck of legal guilt, and, in fact, if they are not legally "guilty", that does not change their misleading of shareholders and abuse of trust. I'm OK with that distinction.
LL
