These are still conspiracies. Unless you can prove beyond doubt that the office of the President of the United States was misused to benefit Oracle because of the friendship between Trump and Ellison then yes your theory can be proved. That can be through money trail/paper trail/wiretapping. Anything that can establish without doubt that the two have a connection. Innocent until proven guilty. Or did we throw that axiom out the window? Trump was a businessman prior to becoming the US President. It is obvious that he has friends in all places. Else he would never have been able to do any sort of business in the first place.
Does just having support or being a friend with a billionaire amount to corruption? What if Google was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle? Or what if Apple was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle?
Apple has also benefited from Trump's interventions. "Tim Cook said during an interview with Fox Business that the Trump administration enabled Apple to enter the Indian retail market." [1]
> They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours.
Even if there was some "obvious" shared interest it helps the US in the end doesn't it? It is not like it is something against USA. So what is the problem here?
Conspiracy theory differs from conspiracy "theory" in what clues you have, without needing concrete, legal evidence that could result in a court decision. In the sense you say it, NSA mega-surveillance was just a "conspiracy theory" before Snowden blew the whistle. If one has IQ over 20, it was obviously not a "theory", despite the fact no court-ready evidence was available. So instead of a blanket statement that every case where no concrete legal evidence exists is equally false, each conspiracy case shall be treated separately. A person with personal ties with Trump getting a direct deal from a Trump driven decision has more basis of corruption and personal relations involvement than Tim saying the government policy eased their entrance to India.
By revealing incriminating evidence. Until then yes it was a conspiracy theory. Snowden did not just "say" that there was mega-surveillance. He actually revealed intricate details of how surveillance is carried out. Even though I disagree with how he revealed secret information, I still believe him because he produced evidence. He literally was in the know how of what happened and why it happened.
> So instead of a blanket statement that every case where no concrete legal evidence exists is equally false, each conspiracy case shall be treated separately.
I am not saying it is false. A conspiracy doesn't amount to falsity. The definition itself states: "Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group". That is it. It doesn't talk about the nature of the event/result of actions. I don't know why you think I am saying that it never happened. I am saying that these are allegations which haven't been proved yet.
> A person with personal ties with Trump getting a direct deal from a Trump driven decision has more basis of corruption and personal relations involvement than Tim saying the government policy eased their entrance to India.
You can say that about any US President then. Every single US President was well connected in some way or the other. How do you think Obama got his Nobel Peace Prize then? That too within 1 year into his office with literally nothing to back it. Was there some form of corruption between Obama and the Nobel Committee? There, I just created a conspiracy theory for you to ponder upon. Now what stops anyone from connecting anything and saying that there must be a reason for why something happened? Nothing! That is why you have Courts which can decide, with a high degree of certainty, that the allegations are true or false.
Does just having support or being a friend with a billionaire amount to corruption? What if Google was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle? Or what if Apple was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle?
Apple has also benefited from Trump's interventions. "Tim Cook said during an interview with Fox Business that the Trump administration enabled Apple to enter the Indian retail market." [1]
Does this also amount to corruption now?
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-...
> They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours.
Even if there was some "obvious" shared interest it helps the US in the end doesn't it? It is not like it is something against USA. So what is the problem here?