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.

  • Genius@lemmy.zip
    0·
    2 months ago

    Alright I’m gonna drop a hot take: if a woman both has been sexually assaulted, and has been falsely accused of sexual assault, and she still believes in unconditionally believing victims, then she deserves to be imprisoned for those false allegations. Because nothing short of that is going to teach her that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that’s her own standard she’s being held to.

    Also everyone in this thread saying that women can’t be accused of sexual assault by women is a homophobe. Sorry I don’t make the rules, and the rules say erasure is intolerance.

    Trump

    Trump, of course, has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a lot more evidence than just victims’ accounts, so the question of whether to “just believe women” is not relevant to Trump.