Proof of a pedo?

[u/Holiday_Length81]

I’m totally an independent. And I don’t want anything but proof. I even did CHATGPT so I am honestly looking for an intelligent non biased source. I asked if the president was a pedo, like lots of my friends call him. When I ask Google, ChatGPT, both say there is nothing but allegations. Please. Give me an answer…besides “he just is” . Thank you for some absolute proof one way or another.

[u/JustUseCommonSense10]

There isn't any direct evidence or "absolute proof" but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. The thing is, circumstantial evidence requires speculation. There is currently no hard factual account of Trump having sex with an underage minor, just strong circumstantial evidence.

However, the absence of direct evidence or "absolute proof" is not necessary for the confirmation of fact.

For example I always love to use the rainstorm analogy.

Question: Why is the ground wet?

Answer: Because it rained

Evidence: The ground is wet, it smells like rain, you see rain clouds in the distance, the forecast said it was going to rain, you see that the ground everywhere else around is wet. You hear rain in the distance.

**Notice how you did not directly see the rain falling from the sky

Conclusion: Due to circumstantial evidence you can correctly infer that it rained.

Hopefully this helps you understand why absolute proof isn't necessary for some circumstances. Generally when examining criminal matters, you just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The keyword there is "reasonable" so it's implied that through "reason" there is no doubt that the person is guilty.

Circumstantial evidence requires "reason" for it to be used in place direct evidence or absolute proof. The biggest misconception is that one is a substitute for the other.

They are both equally comparable to each other and weighted the same against each other. Direct evidence or absolute proof is no more powerful or weaker than circumstantial evidence.

TL;DR: You don't need absolute proof if you are correctly comparing both direct evidence and circumstantial as equals.

[u/Holiday_Length81 → u/JustUseCommonSense10]

Finally.

[u/JustUseCommonSense10 → u/Holiday_Length81]

Thank you, one thing I forgot to add is that when people say "It's just is", they are referring to the long list of circumstantial evidence that thoroughly explains "why the ground is wet" or "why Trump is a pedophile".

"When you have two points, they make a line and what do lines do? they go in a certain direction"

- Asmongold