There is zero good evidence that he did it. They believed her and not him, that is it.
If you believe that "there is zero good evidence that he did it," you haven't been paying attention. It's possible Carroll made it all up, but the story is credible, Carroll is not known to be a liar, and Trump is a self-confessed sexual predator who enjoys grabbing women by their genitals. If Carroll is making it all up, Trump gave her the opportunity to do so credibly by making that claim. If you say something like that, you open the door, just as if you are ever heard saying that you want somebody dead, somebody else can kill them and you'll be the principal suspect.
I used to be a hospice medical director, and from time to time, we would have patients claim repeatedly that their hospice caregivers were abusing them. I can't say that they were lying, but I knew the accused caregivers, could vouch for their caring nature, and nobody else made the same complaints about them, meaning that if they were lying, they made it possible for those caregivers to abuse them with impunity and be believed when they denied it.
Why do believe the Jan 6th report and committee findings?
Because we saw the insurrection, we heard testimony from participants including many that were convicted, and we saw the committee's evidence (footage, witness testimony from credible witnesses working in the Trump White House).
It was a committee run and controlled by democrats that had total control of the government against their main political rival and total control of how the committee was run and what they put out.
There were two Republicans on the committee, but they weren't reporting to MAGA congresspersons. That was McCarthy's choice. McCarthy’s decision left the MAGAs in the Republican conference completely in the dark. The GOP never knew what the committee had, couldn’t prepare defenses for Trump, couldn't influence the direction of the investigation, couldn't ask contrary questions during public or private proceedings, couldn't leak anything, and couldn't dilute the panel’s findings in advance of the final report. But that's what they chose.
They could have picked two republicans that were in favor of Trump instead. Why didn't they do that?
They chose members of Congress that were neither for nor against Trump, just people that were against criminal behavior.
They didn't so they can say it was bipartisan but still keep control of what was put out and concluded.
It was bipartisan.
They picked two republicans that wanted him convicted.
There's no indication that either of them had any opinion before reviewing the evidence. They both voted for Trump in 2016.
There was no avenue for any kind of rebuttal to what the committee was looking at from Trump's side.
Everybody was free to attempt to rebut the committee's finding, and several tried.
Do you remember any mainstream media questioning what was being put out by the committee?
There were plenty of pundits challenging the committee. Hannity and Carlson come to mind. People like Cooper, Tapper, Maddow, and Melber were satisfied with the committee's report.
This was 100% a democrat party operation against a political opponent.
The committee was bipartisan and its mission was not political. It was to investigate the events surrounding J6, prepare a report, and if relevant, make a criminal referral to the DOJ. Smith is tasked with the same mission and had good enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict Trump in criminal court. Those grand jurors weren't working for the Democratic Party. They were independently doing their civic duty.
Playing the partisan politics card doesn't work here except with MAGAs. Trump is claiming the same thing about his upcoming criminal trials, framing them as partisan politics intended to keep him out of the White House. Nobody impartial is buying that, either. Multiple judges have already ruled against the claim.
The next committee to judge that evidence will be the jury hearing the case in court. They'll be reviewing the evidence Smith presents to them. You should expect a conviction.
If the republicans started a committee of all republicans to find out if Biden took payment for influence and access and came to the conclusion that he did and he should be charged with crimes would you accept those conclusions?
If they had compelling evidence, yes.
Funny you should mention that. The MAGA-directed Biden impeachment rumblings were exactly what you accused the J6 committee of - pure partisan politics generating no credible charges. You saw what happens when you go that route. Nothing.