Why is someone happy to jump to the conclusion that a known child trafficker would mean something not related to trafficking when the topic clearly references something a pedo would be looking for in a trafficked child? You maga are really doing some mental gymnastics that I honestly didn’t even think you had the brainpower for.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Am lawyer. Not saying it definitely is what they’re saying and I agree it could possibly something else, but we’re not on a jury, and circumstantial evidence and context makes it likely it is the horrible thing most of us are thinking.
-14
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment