They would need the proof, but they would also need the clout or leverage to be able to get it public and in all honesty, a way to get powers backing this politician to let go of their interest.
I’ll give an example:
We all know wars start over things like oil, right. We accept that each and every time.
I mean, it’s pretty common knowledge that Hillary Clinton discussed Lybia shifting to the Gold Standard before Arab Spring popped up,.
There was even a huge scandal over the emails.
But the way it was spun was that only conspiracy theorists go after Clinton emails. And this was all done in a way where you could at one time easily find the email in question.
What’s so big about that is because world currency, even right now, is USD (American dollars), backed by nothing but a flimsy promise to get some small percentage of the value back to you in the next hundred years…which means it’s backed by our faith on the economy. Which is choppy now, and was dicey after the housing market crash.
So there was rumors about all sorts of spying and CIA involvement (historically they’re most always involved).
The whole point of this is that we had this woman who was involved with that, with media sources declaring her innocent STILL lose an election with the opposition put in place, and inquiry after inquiry:
And nothing really happened.
See, I don’t care what people’s views are on the woman, if they want to call this treason or “in the best interest of the US”, or want to flat out deny that emails had anything to do with reality.
But what I know is that it’s going to take not just having the evidence on the main culprit, but dirt on everyone who wants to protect their own back along the way (including the “free press”), and your particular character having enough backing them to not have them be discredited easily.