We wouldn't need any of this if Trump's supporters actually had the ethics or morals they loudly claim they champion.

"not a girl in sight in these comments"

lmao you just assume if anyone disagrees with you we're not women.

This thread is fkn mess.

Innocent until proven guilty (I say that as a woman AND a survivor of SA).

Then again he was proven guilty in other cases. Seeing as those weren’t enough to remove him from power permanently I am not sure what this would do. If I had to bet on if he assaulted minors I’d go for heck yes. I’d bet nearly everything I have on that. So I’d be a pretty bad jury member of this case ;) anyway: the more evidence there is, the harder it is to ignore. Victim statements are pretty good evidence, but more is better.

Yes, the Epstein files are important, but not for proving guilt.

Honestly, guilt doesn't matter in this case, because nobody who matters cares. His fanbase, his voters, his politicians and even his supreme court don't care. He's been convicted of felonies, and it just didn't matter.

But the Epstein files are something different. It's one of the core things his conspiracy manic fan base are sworn in on. It's part of their core narrative and beliefs. Him being in there could really shake things up.

Believing women dosnt mean just acting blindly on a womans word and nothing more.

Believing women means intiating proper procedures, starting investigations, and gathering the facts and evidence, impartially and without prejudice.

So yes, We need the epstein files, even if we believe women, because they are evidence that, in all likelyhood, supports their claims.

These files should have been handled a decade ago, but the fact that they've spent so much time and energy trying to alter and hide them shows how damning they really are, that even after having months of time to alter and remove Trumps name, that they still were not able to and had to emergency switch to "Epstein files? What files? No such files exist!"

Convicting based upon words sworn under oath and with no facts to back it up but feelings and outage has lead to a lot of overturned verdicts and innocent lives ruined.

Um... I'm a girl, and I totally believe these women were assaulted because we're talking about rich assholes who literally feel like they can do anything.

But you have to present evidence no matter what. That's literally how the court works. If all we have is he-said-she-said, then there's not much we can do to reach a verdict. There have been regular people who have been incorrectly deemed assaulters/rapists due to lack of evidence. We have seen women who lie about this. You NEED to have proof, to ensure that it's an undeniable fact that the accused is officially recognized as a shit person.

This is an unrealistic ideal, I'm gonna be real. I want these women to win and be acknowledged. I want all who interacted with Epstein to rot in prison and hell. But we need evidence. That's just the truth.

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

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

Got me an ex that wanted, out of spite, to turn me in with the police for rape. And saying so she could baby lasso me back.

There is a reason why evidence is needed to proof something.

When a woman claims to have been assaulted, I automatically believe her in regards to how I treat her.

As far as the person she's accused goes, though, I think it's pretty easy to understand that nobody should be convicted on the sole evidence of their accuser's testimony, and I think that should apply to the court of public opinion as well.

It's a situation where either one person is guilty of a horrible crime, or the other is making false allegations of said crime. In order for both to be "innocent until proven guilty", you need to assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they're false while interacting with the accused. It's really counterintuitive and maybe impossible to do

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.

No, we would still need evidence.

Because of that ‘innocent until caught’ and ‘due process’ things you may had heard about.

Note: a credible testimony IS evidence, although it must be a little bit beyond the simple ‘trust me’ stuff.

I personally witnessed a woman fake being raped and abused by her ex because her ex found a new girlfriend after they broke up for a few days. She even beat herself up and tore up her own clothes. She admitted to it the next day after she calmed down. I know not every woman is like this but there has to be evidence. It sucks I know but that’s just how it has to be.

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.