You don't need evidence for innocence, you need evidence for guilt. In the US legal system the evidence presented needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, otherwise innocence is presumed.
The fact that literally ALL of the accusations against Trump have come from insane people that the FBI themselves labeled as untrustworthy and unreliable, not to mention are contradicted by basic timelines, should be more than enough reason to simply dismiss them.
If Trump were truly as guilty as people desperately want him to be, there would simply be stronger evidence in support of it. Something actionable and definitive would've materialized, but all we've gotten is smoke and he-said she-said nothingburgers.
So far the only thing people have managed to produce are either uncorroborated insane ramblings from anonymous tiplines about Trump threatening them with a gun in a limo and him throwing babies into a lake or vague implications with no actual proof of wrongdoing. Not to mention the conflicting stuff like multiple Epstein victims, like Guffre, swearing up and down that Trump dindu nuffin, or the fact that Trump was the only Epstein associate that was actively willing to help put Epstein behind bars with the Feds.