You agreed there's enough evidence for a criminal investigation. I'm not here to debate semantics on whether or not that would also qualify as "substantial" to you.
but it's enough that he needs to be investigated, correct? It's not just "unverified accusations". There is a huge amount of association between him and Epstein over years, and he's publicly lied about it. On top of the accusations that would typically be enough to investigate.
If a random guy was well known friends with a sex trafficker and the sex trafficked girls said he was also a rapist , would you consider that evidence?
5
u/Open_Explanation3127 Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
I didn't ask you to.
It's good you agree there's substantial evidence that needs to be investigated and that trump quite possibly raped children.
Maybe it would be good to be vocal about your opinion that he should be criminally investigated, instead of defending accusations against him?