I think the standard formula is "no evidence". Incidentally, check out https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...

But I think that the position of "until we have a court decision proving corruption, one could not reasonably talk of a possibility of corruption, and discuss appearance of conflict of interest" is naive at best, and completely boneheaded at the usual case. Corruption is notoriously hard to prove, especially "soft" corruption where there's no direct bribery but more like alignment of interests diverting the interests of corrupt functionaries from serving the people (who even knows that that means?) to serving their private wallet and/or ideology (well, that one is much clearer).

And there's tons of the press talking about German politicians being too cozy with Russia, even pre-dating the war. So what? It's not like German voters cared.

That has already happened. Try looking for Schwesig and her Klimastiftung, and that’s just a tiny part of the picture.

There are no proofs. Those with proofs have suicide waiting at their doorsteps.