there are a list of literal accusers who are alleging crimes ranging from trafficking and statutory rape to full blown rape. but even if we're only looking at the scope of just the emails you're still wrong. police use communication between people using coded language all of the time as evidence admissible in a court of law. if they catch a drug ring at trial they can show messages like "when is the load of ice coming in". then the prosecutor can argue to the jury that this means drugs, and the defense can argue that this just means frozen water, and the jury can interpret it however they want.
but this is all pretty silly, because in context almost zero more evidence should be needed for a full blown investigation. we have a guy who was convicted of trafficking, and his accomplice maxwell was convicted of trafficking, but there is no one currently under investigation as being trafficked to. then a group of women come forward and say they were trafficked, and they have names of people they were trafficked to and abused by. the FBI refuses to take their testimony, covers up all of the files, has to be forced to release them by congress, redacts most of them into nothingness, and every time they're asked what investigations they're doing they say openly that they're not investigating anyone and strawman as if the question meant they need to hold public executions for anyone named in the files.
this whole evidence vs proof conversation is a gripe of mine. people simply dont understand what evidence means. its not proof, but people use them too synonymously and its led to a lot of confusion. anything can be evidence, not all of that evidence can be submitted to court, and it takes a LOT of evidence to prove something. there's literally whole law books written on the types of evidence you can't use in court, but its still all evidence. and evidence is what prompts investigation, to find out if enough admissible evidence is in existence to prompt a charge. so we really just need to ask is there enough evidence to support an investigation, and i think we agree yes. and is there a good faith investigation that will take place? my guess is no. we're on the brink of conflict in multiple areas and on the verge of an economic downturn. they're gonna drag their feet until something big enough comes to destract the public and nothing will come of anything.
You’re massively misunderstanding the legal definition of sex trafficking... Jeffrey Epstein is guilty sex trafficking even if there were no
other “customers”. He was a “customer”. Maxwell is guilty of trafficking in the way you are imagining is the only way to be guilty of that crime, as she procured girls for Epstein(and possibly others).
As an example, Harvey Weinstein was charged(albeit unsuccessfully) with sex trafficking. The charge was not that he trafficked women “to” anyone.
The charge of(adult) sex trafficking requires it to be proven that “force, fraud or coercion” were used during a commercial sex act. This is not the case with minors. Committing a commercial sex act with a minor is always sex trafficking. Anyone found guilty of sexual crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein will be found guilty of sex trafficking.
But, again, and hopefully for the last time, yes there is more than enough evidence to open an investigation. That is, zero evidence. The only thing you need to open an investigation is reasonable suspicion, which is a pretty low standard.