Which action would best demonstrate 'exonerating' someone?

To demonstrate "exonerating" someone means to clear them from blame or prove them innocent of wrongdoing. This process involves providing credible evidence or arguments that support their innocence, thereby absolving them of any accusation or conviction. By proving someone's innocence, you are effectively lifting the burden of guilt that has been placed on them, which aligns directly with the definition of exoneration.

The other options do not fulfill the criteria for exoneration. Convicting someone based on evidence would establish their guilt rather than absolving them. Ignoring allegations does not address the matter at hand, allowing the accusations to remain unchallenged, which does not contribute to proving innocence. Maintaining guilt despite evidence runs contrary to the act of exoneration, as it involves adhering to the belief that the person is guilty regardless of the proof presented to the contrary. Thus, the action that best aligns with exonerating someone is proving their innocence in a credible manner.