Even if we take into consideration that 90% (out of 25) could be lying (they aren’t), that’s still ~3 women he assaulted.
Edit: Damn y’all, thanks for that old internet feeling I keep coming back to Lemmy for. Not a girl in sight in these comments.
Is testifying under oath not considered evidence? There have been so many credible lawsuits against this guy for sexual assault. Honestly what are these files going to prove that we don’t already have plenty of evidence for?
And lastly, do you have any idea what going after a rich powerful man for sexually assaulting you does to your life? Why the fuck would anybody put themselves through that if they weren’t absolutely sure they had a credible case? Some of the plaintiffs in these cases had their lives and their family’s lives threatened and disrupted.
Welp, to the bottom with me I suppose.
Believing women doesn’t mean convicting every person who is accused. It means if someone makes an accusation you should look into it instead of immediately disregarding it.
How does “We wouldn’t need [evidence] if society just trusted women” fit your argument?
Being in the Epstein log books isn’t evidence of sexual assault comparable to simply listening to Virginia Giuffre.
And, ffs, Testimony Is Evidence. If a woman says “I’ve been raped, that’s the guy who did it”, that’s evidence of the accused committing a rape.
UnderpantsWeevil raped me.
You do know what a testimony is right? 😂
Would you be willing to say that in court, under threat of perjury?
If I knew you personally and I was in a desperate situation and thought I could extract life changing amounts from you, yes, I might be willing to say that in court, under threat of perjury.
You’re implying this doesn’t happen, which is clearly false. False accusations of rape have been made in court. At least OP is asking people to believe women without evidence, but you’re asking us to believe no one ever files frivolous lawsuits, contrary to much available evidence.
In fact, in a legal system like the US that often favors persecution over defense, once an accusation is made to a cop, it can take on momentum toward court.
Blindly believing accusers because they are women isn’t egalitarian, it’s sexist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_rape_hoax
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
The Epstein list isn’t the only evidence they would find.
Also, if women’s testimony isn’t good enough, why is a list written by a man good enough?
Then use that evidence.
So, you’re saying don’t believe them? Because if you believe them, then the accused is guilty, end of story.
According to OP “We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.”
So, believing women is proof, and not only proof, but proof so strong that we wouldn’t even need the Epstein files. You might think that believing women doesn’t mean convicting every person who is accused, but OP sure seems to think so.