:I understand your concerns regarding BLP when it comes to charges that may be unfounded, and we should tread carefully in such matters.  However, reporting widely-discussed charges like this is not prohibited by BLP policy, especially in a case like this one where the sources are plentiful and unassailable.  I don't know if you are familiar with the Almanac of American Politics, but it is a standard and widely respected reference work, and it notes that the issue was "the most incendiary of the campaign".  It's one thing if contemporary news articles make a big stink about an issue that may or may not turn out to be important in the future, but it's quite another when a reference book makes an assessment of an entire career and says the issue is significant.  Given that, I don't know how we could justify excluding it.  

 :As far as trimming the discussion, I am of course open to discussion, but trimming it to once sentence isn't appropriate.  We shouldn't "tease" the reader by merely hinting at an issue and then dropping the discussion entirely.  Undue weight is a consideration, of course, but a sentence isn't enough to even mention the issue, never mind Coburn's legal exoneration.   

 :Best of luck with your Arbcom dispute.  I don't want to take sides in the conflict, but I notice that you were giving as good as you were getting on the Acorn talk page.  Regardless of who is in the right, a back and forth like that can only escalate.  In the future I suggest not responding to what you see as provocations and instead taking a complaint to Arbcom or AN/I.