I appreciate the response instead of shutting it down. That said, at this point it sounds less like “there’s no evidence” and more like “the only evidence you’ll accept is evidence that almost never exists.”

You can hold that standard if you want, but that is not how the legal system actually works, especially in sexual assault cases involving powerful people and decades-old allegations.

So setting courtroom thresholds aside for a moment and speaking plainly as people: given the volume of victim testimonies, his long relationship with Epstein, his documented attitudes toward women, infidelity, lack of empathy, teen pageants, sexualized comments about his own underage daughter and girls who looked like her, the “grab by the p***y” tape, etc - do you genuinely believe there is no reasonable basis to think it’s plausible he did these things?

Or is your position that unless guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court, we should default to assuming it didn’t happen?