Do you have evidence for that?

Do you have evidence?

Do you have evidence of that?

xnex Ripxic TheFrenchie Listen to Ripxic, you might learn something

xnex Ripxic Tman🇺🇸 TheFrenchie 3 followers in 2 years. It’s because you’re inherently stupid and spews words that are not your own, word’s you’ve heard. If this is your best perhaps refrain from posting

Do you have evidence that Trump is a pedophile?

There isn't any evidence to support the claim that Trump is a pedophile and a rapist.

Evidence of that?

That article is about a civil case, not a criminal one. Trump was not criminally convicted of rape. There was no indictment, no criminal trial, and no criminal verdict. The jury found civil liability for sexual battery and defamation between adults under New York law, which has

You seem upset, but you still haven’t proven your claim. Trump doesn’t “release the files.” Courts do. Judges control what’s unsealed and what stays redacted under law. Presidents don’t decide that. If there were prosecutable evidence, it wouldn’t require social media pressure.

You’re mixing up executive authority with judicial control. The President does not control court records, sealed filings, grand jury material, or victim-protected evidence. Epstein-related materials are largely court records and civil/criminal case files, not classified

He can’t just “release the Epstein files.” Here’s what would actually be required. First, identify what kind of documents you’re talking about. Most Epstein-related material consists of court records, sealed filings, grand jury transcripts, victim statements, and evidence from

You’re still assuming redactions equal guilt, and that’s the core mistake. Redactions are not discretionary favors for “elites.” They are legally required and imposed by courts to protect victims, witnesses, grand jury secrecy, ongoing investigations, and uncharged third

You’re still overstating presidential power and inventing legal effects that don’t exist. FBI 302s, DOJ memos, and investigative files are not evidence of guilt and are not freely releasable just because a President wants them out. They are protected law-enforcement records

Saying “money and power” doesn’t magically replace evidence. Courts don’t work on vibes or assumptions. If wealth alone could nullify the legal system, Epstein wouldn’t have been arrested, Maxwell wouldn’t be convicted, and powerful politicians and executives wouldn’t ever go to

And how is that evidence? Do you even know what evidence is?🤦

Laughing and name-dropping “the Rothschilds” isn’t an argument, it’s a dodge. No one said the wealthy are never treated differently. The claim you’re making is stronger: that accusations are true without evidence because power exists. That’s not realism, that’s abandoning

A name appearing in files is not evidence of a crime. Epstein records include contact lists, emails, third-party tips, and hearsay. Courts have explicitly said that mentions are not findings of fact. If name = guilt, thousands of people would be criminals by default. That’s

Calling it “all theater” isn’t an argument, it’s just giving up on evidence entirely. Yes, wealth can influence outcomes sometimes. That still doesn’t turn allegations into facts or mentions into crimes. If the standard is “the system is corrupt, therefore my claim is true,”

Of course I will. If actual evidence comes out, meaning sworn testimony, corroboration, charges, indictments, or court findings, then the conclusion changes. That’s how evidence works. But “if files are released someday” isn’t evidence now. You don’t get to declare guilt in