As it lies right now, there is no objective evidence proving this. Something is clearly suspicious, and there is guilt. But your framing of objectivity is entirely assumptive. Is the dude sketch? Am I ready for this presidency to be over, fuck yeah. Is he a pedophile? I dont know, so im saying I dont know, and if it comes out he is, bury his ass under the jail, but if he’s not, then what?
What you’re describing isn’t evidence but an implication. In any system of justice, evidence must prove a charge, not just “suggest” one. Otherwise you’re arguing for guilt by association, which is text book authoritarianism. You’ve just admitted you don’t need proof, only suspicion.
Precision isn’t semantics; it’s quite literally the only thing that separates truth from accusation. If you think clarity is a problem, it’s because the entire foundation of your argument style is predicated on blurring definitions so that suspicion can masquerade as proof. Basically, you’re too dumb to argue.
I've consistently engaged you, and you're too dumb to debate. You have not owned anything. Association is not a crime. Ok, person A and person B are bar buddies. They have a drink together every time they see each other. They dont call each other or spend time together outside of the bar. Person A, however, consistently sexually assaults person C. Person B does not know person C. Is a person an accomplice or a rapist?
I just did. I said yes and no. So if you believe that he did. Trump sent condolences to Matt Gaetz for what he described was a which hunt against him for getting him to resign/leave out of congress. There it is, you admit that Trump sent condolences to a man you acknowledge had inappropriate contact with minors