Decision-making, and its related presumptions change when the threat becomes existential.
Deceivers with resources who abuse the public trust and its presumptions towards individuals, take advantage of societies understanding, towards destructive ends, and continue doing so regardless. They corrupt the systems meant to protect and keep destructive outcome dynamics in check usually for personal or political benefit.
The entities are not entitled to the same benefit of the doubt when they have a history of malfeasance, and lack of credibility.
This is true of anti-trust, government corruption, and government in general when you consider the many other things like Tuskegee, or what happened to the Inuit women who were involuntarily sterilized following eugenics programs in the late 60s early 70s, along with other indigenous peoples under the guise of beneficial programs promoting public health.
You can see just how well fines do in curbing corruption like JPM's silver manipulation over a decade, or Egg price fixing over the past 10 years, or medical equipment providers who have defects that kill patients, and then claim they fix them falsely (in bad faith).
There is a point where you cannot presume innocence, especially with regards to non-person entities (like corporations), who will pay the fine and continue business as usual passing the cost on.
Eventually you hit a critical saturation point where the presumption and benefit of the doubt must necessarily flip.
When related systems break enough, there is a point where people realize the rule of law has failed, and consider alternatives like the brass verdict, and act on it.
These are not good things, but they happen when the dynamics to correct fail as a whole. When people start objectively finding foundational violations, it becomes and is a societal existential threat and should be treated as such.
Failure to react from that point forward then becomes opting out of continued survival, which is well beyond any considered point of absurdity.
Evil is blind to the natural destructive consequences it creates, and sometimes evil needs killing just as it did with the Nazi's.
When the rule of law can no longer fulfill the obligations under social contract, and act as a non-violent conflict resolution, the alternative is natural law and chaos, and it is something that no good person would wish on anyone.
It's one thing to not trust some entity and say they do bad things a lot, or to assume they're being evil in certain areas where they have established motives and patterns.
It's quite another to be so general about it that if a single person flippantly accuses them of basically anything you start off believing it. That's going too far and leads to some ridiculous early conclusions.
There is no issue of people projecting bad intention into conservatives or Trump. There is opposite issue - people excusing them forever with increasingly implausible explanations.
