There are a lot of you (bohm, sir, spoletta, coded logic and more) who have concluded he is guilty based on supposed "EVIDENCE".
I think the issue here is you seem not to understand how proper inference works. I don't have to see you rob a bank to have good reasons for thinking you might be involved. If I have you on tape saying, "I sure would like to have all the money in that bank" - if your immediate associates are being investigated by the FBI for the robbery - and if your bank account suddenly rockets into the millions - than yeah, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you might be involved.
This is the same position we find ourselves in with the Trump campaign. And when I say, "We have multiple lines of evidence all closing in on the fact that Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians" - that is NOT the same thing as "Trump is guilty".
It'd be really nice if you could engage honestly instead of just continually strawmaning people and attacking them for positions that they don't hold.
This is NOT a courtroom. There is no judge. There is no jury. This is a group of people talking about what they think is likely to have happened and what they think is likely to happen.
To object to a persons claims because it wouldn't result in a courtroom conviction is as silly as it is pedantic.