One thing is certain: someone who has been declared a rapist by a court of law and has been convicted of many serious crimes should never be president of a country — especially not if he is also doing everything in his power to withhold incriminating material relating to the investigation of a pedophile ring.

The burden of proof for a criminal rape suit is really high, and you can't really just He-said She-said it.

This thread is fkn mess.

If this were the case, Republicans would easily find 30 women to lie against Kamala Harris or whoever the next Democratic candidate is

Human stories/word/memory is incredibly fallible (be it because of how flawed humans are either biologically or behaviourally) that nothing outside of law enforcement uses human stories/word/memory as reliable evidence.

So no, testifying under oath will not be considered as evidence to anyone who values provable, testable fact.

Technically true and I get the point of the statement, but unquestioningly trusting a whole category of people is no smarter than mistrusting a whole category of people. We're all individuals with our own levels of honesty, spite, conscience, etc. No matter how much we decide to trust each other, in each case we still need to examine evidence and evaluate accusations objectively - a process Trump has avoided all his life.

Even for such an orange looking piece of shit the judicial process should be fair, and everyone should be innocent until proven guilty.

God, I remember stories of some women who falsely claim sexual assault which has ruined people's livelyhoods. When there are consequences, just ruling on vibes and a 1 sided account of a story is so incredibly bad.

Right, and we wouldn't need judges if everyone just believes a suspected murderer is a murderer.

Well, the thing is, the Epstein files isn't about women.

It's about girls.

So even if we did believe in women more, those files should be released