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 mean I don’t think 25 women would lie about stuff that would be slander or libel when it comes to someone as litigious and thin skinned as Trump.
Not much evidence you can provide when it’s one person’s word over another. Only thing I can say is he never won a libel suit against his accusers as far as I know.
I don’t care who is accused - I refuse to convict anyone on anything just from an accusation.
More people making a similar accusation isn’t evidence, at best that’s a witch hunt.
I also that, but I’m also in support of massively reforging the legal system so that everyone can and will use it appropriately.
Which a large part of that will be changing how it is funded and expanding it all that appearing before a court to have your case heard is as easy as possible.
Any issue before a court shouldn’t be swayed so easily by how much money you can spend on it, or how long you can tie up the issue to delay and it avoid resolution.
It’s a weird situation where I think more is better
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Witness testimony in court is not “just an accusation”. It’s corroborated by cross examination.
This is pretty ironic.
Cross examination is where the opposing council questions the witness in an attempt to poke holes in their testimony, point out inconsistencies and otherwise discredit the witness.
While corroboration means:
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. synonym: confirm.
Cross examination, be definition, is the exact opposite of corroboration.
And like a good scientist, I don’t give a shit what you think. Give me evidence.
People can’t argue that Donald Trump’s assault on due process is wrong and then turn around and argue that any individual should not get due process, even that scum himself. The gender of the witness is irrelevant, witness testimony is unreliable as it is subject to intimidation, coercion, deception, or even the plain old fallibility of human memory.
I absolutely think there is evidence out there. This man has said so many awful things and I don’t believe all 25 accusers are lying. But I do believe every case should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the evidence allows.
Donald Trump’s crimes must be laid bare and proven beyond a doubt because even then the MAGA cult will do their mental gymnastics but he will truly have been dethroned as the populist leader of the right that he’s been since 2016.
A-fucking-men
“Maybe she wanted it”
“Maybe she injured herself”
“Maybe she is just jealous”
Hard to get evidence to trial when the police and prosecutors ignore evidence of rape like bruises, torn clothing, etc.
Yeah? You got any proof of bruises, torn clothing or et cetera? Please, let’s nail him to the wall together!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I’m not constantly asking for evidence you dunce. I’m arguing the original point. Fuck Trump, he’s a cunt for 1000 reasons and I BELIEVE in my heart of hearts he molested girls.
We stand on a system that requires evidence for those claims for a reason, and I believe in those protections when you or I end up under fire.
So after reading this linked wiki article I find a couple interesting points of the above description.
1 relentless requests
2 pretense of civility and sincerity
So I’ll ask you a couple questions, if you don’t mind answering (and much thanks to you if you do answer them)
As I don’t observe either of the points in your comment in this thread, if I were to go look at your comment history, and I wont because I don’t care to spend any effort to do so, will I find a history of you asking for evidence on this specific topic, as if you were looking for opportunities to do so, Cherry picking as one might call it?
And also how often would you say someone accuses you of sea lioning beer on Lemmy?
I’m asking because I’m betting the answers are no and hardly ever
It’s frustrating when people try to eject to from a discussion because they ascribe motives you don’t possess, at least in my experience if it does
Behaviour of sealion is only right course of action if someone just accused it of something that would destroy its life and reputation.