Hacker News Reader

Comment by the-peter | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but what is that evidence, again?

He had a very close, decades long friendship with the most notorious sex-trafficker-of-children-to-rich-creeps in modern history for decades. And when imprisoned, that infamous pedophile died while in a federal prison under Trump's control, with a strange gap in the CCTV video footage. And Trump's handling of the entire Epstein Files saga makes it clear that Trump is described extensively in those files and he desperately wants to conceal it. What could be in there that he would use the entire justice department to try and redact? Trump is shameless about things that are legal even if they're salacious (like sleeping with porn star Stormy Daniels), so you have to wonder, what could Jeffery Epstein's good friend be trying to conceal?

Also, he owned the Miss Universe org (including Miss USA and Miss Teen USA) for decades, and he was known to walk into the dressing rooms of teen contestants as young as 15 while they were undressed. [0]

Also, he bragged about molesting women, and a court of law found that he sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll.

I haven't proven the case that Trump had sex with a minor, but there's way more than enough probable cause to believe it's more likely than not.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200111171647/https://www.rolli...

Obviously this looks very bad but you don't seriously think it constitutes evidence?

Imagine there's a camera continuously recording a cookie jar. A child eats all of the cookies and then deletes the footage from the time they ate the cookies. A parent returns to find their child covered in crumbs, loudly proclaiming they haven't eaten a cookie in years and actively interferes with the parent's investigation and tries to distract from it by throwing a brick through the window of an Iranian family down the street.

Are any of the facts in this hypothetical "evidence"? With the knowledge of the truth (that the kid ate the cookies), it's clear these are all relevant pieces of evidence. If we take knowledge of the truth out of the equation, would these facts still be evidence? Unambiguously they would.

you don't seriously think it constitutes evidence? Do you even know what the word evidence mean? It is not the same as proof.

Maybe you would want to insert the term "circumstantial" or so.

Definitionally both circumstantial and direct evidence are forms of evidence. No modifier is necessary.

And incidentally you can be convicted in a court of law purely on circumstantial evidence, and that's the place in society where we have the highest standard of proof. The evidence all being circumstantial is not a gotcha.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-evidence-corroborates-clai...

Yeah that's pretty bad.

This isn't court. The evidence, such as it is, is all of the smoke which commonly motivates people to look for fire. The strongest and most comprehensive that I've seen is the argument that if Trump was not implicated in the Epstein files, he would be publishing them in free book form himself and forcing every media outlet to advertise it. Slight exaggeration, but I think truly only slight.

Not really relevant to the thread, but there are simple answers to the "eViDeNcE??" question. You may have already known this.

Again, circumstantial and speculative.

Clearly you don’t and that disingenuousness is frowned upon in discussions here.

So, where’s the evidence?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-evidence-corroborates-clai...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com