I use those words because this all started with the video which is primarily what we were originally talking about. I stand by anything I have said about it until proven wrong. But yes, I believe the vast majority of the evidence mentioned so far is very weak...at best. Hearsay has a specific meaning. Evidence based solely on hearsay IS baseless. You also can't be guilty of a crime by association. And most of those associates accused of crimes also have weak or circumstantial evidence anyway. I'm not trying to impugn anyone, just making a judgement on the quality of the evidence I have seen (and yes, I've spent time looking at it).
Just to take Silsby as an example, is there any evidence at all that she had malicious intent to harm children? Or evidence that she has harmed children in the past? Any kind of history that suggests she would harm children? I haven't seen any. Did she do stupid things and things that were against the law? Yes. It just isn't clear to me where sex trafficking figures into it or malicious intent of any kind towards the children. In context she was part of a missionary group that went to Haiti to help kids after a devastating earthquake. I don't personally claim she was trying to do good but it doesn't seem less likely than her trying to participate in sex trafficking. I don't know what her intent was because I can't read her mind. I can only make a judgement based on available evidence. All the evidence says thus far is that she was trying to take shortcuts she shouldn't have been. I also think we have to be careful about what these terms mean. Sex trafficking of children may be something completely different than child trafficking which I assume one may be convicted of by just transporting a child across a boarder without obeying all the laws and regulations. I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be too hard to be convicted of such a charge with no malicious intent at all but that's just speculation on my part. And looking in to the Silsby case further, didn't the supposed lawyer who is under investigation for child trafficking make a false claim when he said he represented Silsby's group? This is the perfect example of absolutely baseless evidence against HRC. "Baseless" is a perfect term in this case. It is not any kind of evidence at all and to be considered evidence it requires a great many assumptions.
And I personally have a hard time believing anyone who says they have evidence they can't discuss. Particularly someone I don't know. Even if they have such evidence there may be disagreement on its nature or quality. Not only do you have to believe what they say, you have to trust their judgement 100%. If evidence can't be shared then it isn't.
I haven't looked into every single claim made about HRC or her associates. But as I look at one after the other and find little or nothing there, it starts to seem like a waste of time. Investigators should continue investigating if they feel they have good cause to! But to come out with accusations, especially accusations as heinous as pedophilia and child sex trafficking, before there is a single solid piece of evidence doesn't do their cause any good.
Look at it another way. In a court of law, which of this evidence presented so far would even be admissible? Any of it? If not, it does not even rise to the level of circumstantial. I'm pretty sure that saying some woman HRC helped whose group had someone falsely claim he was their lawyer and who happened to be under investigation for child trafficking probably would not be admissible. Nor should it be.
Again, I am no fan of HRC. I just HATE seeing such strong accusations based on such weak evidence because I believe it only helps her. There's nothing wrong with investigation but I think more care should be taken before accusations are made or such investigations are publicized. Once people stop taking you seriously, it is very hard to get them to start again.
"Impede organic formation of considerations". What does that mean? What considerations? The vast majority of people aren't going to take any claim of the existence of a video seriously, even one far less extreme than what has been mentioned, unless the video sees the light of day. You can't consider a video when there isn't one to consider. You can't claim something is evidence when you can't present it. The reasons should be blatantly obvious. And if such evidence is presented and the source and veracity of it are uncertain, it should be presented that way with the goal of verifying it, not with claims of absolute proof.
I know you don't like my "russian collusion" analogy but I think it applies for this reason. Too many people are very strongly partisan in their views. They are too ready to believe any claim on the weakest of evidence as long as it supports the person they support or impugns one they don't. Claims of russian collusion or sex trafficking (or rape and murder for that matter) should be treated with skepticism, not immediate presumption of truth. I know we also may disagree on the strength of evidence against HRC but I look at it from the court of law point of view. If it wouldn't be admissible then it falls below the level of circumstantial (maybe it's above "baseless" but that's slicing things pretty fine).
And just to go back to what the OP was about, what actual evidence is there that a video exists that shows HRC in a compromising position with children (or that is any way compromising)? The most solid piece of evidence I heard was that some (nameless?) NYPD officer(s) claimed it existed on Weiner's laptop. The best I can tell, the sole source of this information was a supposed "investigative journalist" named Liz Crokin. Is she trustworthy? Beats me but I don't think her report would be admissible in court without, at the very least, some actual sources. Otherwise, how do you know it isn't "fake news"?