Lol, you're falling apart again. That is nothing close to an answer, you bitched out and tried to deflect again. We have accusations against Prince Andrew, JB Pritzker's cousin, Marvin Minsky, Bill Richardson, several of the girls talked about Bill Clinton "liking them young" and being on the plane often, and we have a pretty good list of people who were still hanging out with him after he was already convicted of banging kids and was a registered sex offender, including George Slopadolpoulos and Reid Hoffman, who paid E Jean Carrol to accuse Trump, and NY changed the goddamn law just to allow the suit for which there was never any evidence or even a year it's supposed to have happened.
What the hell would qualify as "evidence" to you if the girls naming Prince Andrew, giving detailed descriptions of being raped by him, suing him, providing photos proving he was where they said he was with the underage girls at Epstein's house, and his bizarre interview claiming he can't sweat and it couldn't have been him because he remembers being at a Pizza Express on the random Sunday 17 years earlier?
Now suddenly nothing short of DNA and video of the rape count as "evidence", but you are absolutely fine taking an 80 year old Fire marshal Bill lookalike's claim of being fingerbanged when she was like 60 without even knowing the year as absolute proof. There's not a single person who's attracted to both senior citizens and underage kids, but you don't even require a credible story when it's someone you don't like.
So I'll ask again, why would they not prosecute or leak evidence of Trump banging children if they had it? Don't deflect, and I'm not interested in what you accept as evidence against other people who they would cover for, I'm asking why they wouldn't prosecute the guy they would never in a million years cover for, and have been in a 10 year scramble for damaging information against, and already have prosecuted and investigated for anything real or imagined they could come up with.