That is not Occams razor. It’s more like the reality TV crazy man theory. It is not the simplest explananation, in fact. It makes it more complicated and incoherent.
“He could do ANYTHING. He’s crazy. He’s stupid and a genius too! He doesn’t need a material reason to do anything. He is the wind. He lives in his own universe. Other leaders cannot enter his fortress of intentional solitude”
How rich do you think he really is by the way?
This is the mental space you need to live in around the current events situation? The fact that you could do this after the responses in this thread is close to gaslighting. You are ignoring the evidence, seemingly because it is in plain sight and understandable.
From Wikipedia: "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[3][4] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly assumed to be the most powerful.[5] Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence.[6] Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[7] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[8] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[9] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does."
Here is my question for you: What difference does it make to investigating agencies and to citizens, if donald is not being blackmailed, but instead, is simply a child playing dictator. How do the investigations differ? You need to deal with the worst possible outcomes first anyway.