There's been plenty of evidence that Hunter is creep with minors, just like his daddy creepy Joe. According to this sub, you have to prove innocence, so where is the proof that Hunter didn't?

Yes. Much better that we assume guilt until proven innocent.

Wait. When did we start talking about Hunter Biden?

According to the article the supposed witnesses were garbage. Even the prosecution thought their testimony wouldn't hold up in court.

Somehow I have to prove a negative, to prove innocence, and yet somehow the parent commenter can make unfounded accusations without proof and be considered legit, worthy of updoinks? You people are in a delusional echo chamber. What a joke of a forum this is.

Probably because it never happened.

Here's a link from what you might consider a reliable source: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/23/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-probe-prosecutors-recommend-against-charges.html

See here's how politics work: Make an accusation. Slander your opponent. Bring forward witnesses. Drop or lose your case when no evidence is found.

Oh. I didn't realize the term for pedophilic perversion had changed to "wearing makeup". My bad. I wasn't keeping up with the latest terminology. Please don't cancel me.

It's because liberal politicians here in the U.S. love to play games with words. When a word or phrase doesn't fit their political motives, they change the word or the definition of the word. There are literally words that we can't say in the US due to "politically correct" pressures, but if you were in any other part of the world, the same words would be perfectly acceptable. The "negative connotations" are completely overblown by the same people who wield the power of cancel culture.

Hey look. I'm active!