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.
I’m old, so I’m more familiar with before me too than after. I believe a piece of what she is trying to say is the doubt that permeates any initial accusation. Doubt was the standard approach to any mention of rape or assault for decades.
Back in college, in the 90s, a good friend was followed home from a party. She made it home, thought she was safe. While she was showering in her basement (house) apartment, she looked up to see hands and a nose pressed to the frosted glass of the window, trying to see in. She called the police. A pair of cops showed up and the first thing they asked wasn’t: are you ok. Or. Did you get a good look at the guy. No. They asked her if she’d been drinking tonight. Then: Well, what were you wearing when you walked home from this party?
Footprints and knee prints in the dirt consistent with someone tramping into the flower bed to kneel down by her bathroom window. Hand prints and a nose grease smear on the glass. No attempt to investigate further. Chastised to drink less. She was not drunk, yet this was the takeaway message of that encounter instead of her safety. Encounters like these regarding the sexual safety of women were so common in the 90s.
The salient point here is this post likely is not about flipping the innocent until proven guilty narrative. This is about the preliminary circumstances that would lead into a case and taking the woman’s safety seriously instead of ignoring perpetrators who leave evidence behind.
If no one listens to you or takes you seriously, or avoids asking the relevant questions, that is a problem. Worse it’s a problem that was the status quo for decades.
So, when OP says maybe we should listen to trumps accusers that’s what it likely means. To listen. Not to flip the innocent until proven guilty narrative.