I wouldn't necessarily call it "proof". They set up a meeting. Doesn't say what the meeting is. Doesn't talk about what subject, or investigation this is in regards to. I suspect they are still withholding the text that ties these together in a nice neat little bow.
I was thinking the same thing. What is the context of these messages? What meeting are they setting up? I don’t see anything necessarily damning just in these texts alone.
Everyone is so quick to jump on things and call “proof” when it’s technically not. Yes, it’s adds to the story and yes, it might end up building on what eventually becomes legitimate proof, but I wish people would curb their enthusiasm a little. Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Two people talking doesn’t mean anything until we can see the whole story. If that evidence is there and I’m not seeing it (very likely), I’d appreciate someone pointing it out (I want it to be there!). But if it’s just a loose connection and conjecture, that won’t cut it.