Here's a conversation I want to have. I'm not sure what the question I am asking is. Maybe somebody can help me parse the concern into a meaningful point.
Donald is being accused left and right by women he has allegedly assaulted. The examples that we have are quite old - over a decade in some cases. Donald responds to these accusations by calling the women liars.
But Donald and his team are also accusing Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting women. The examples that we have are quite old, decades in some cases. If Bill Clinton is innocent, which we cannot prove without a doubt, then these women are lying.
This is a difficult situation because there is no way HRC and the Democrats can address the accusations without implying the same excuse Donald is making: that the accusations are simply false.
How do we reconcile that? How do we refute Bill Clinton's accusations without validating Donald's own denial? Because all we mostly have are the testimonies of the victims.
Here's what is tricky about sexual misconduct: It's really a crime like any other. What makes it such a sensitive topic is the culture surrounding it. For years, women have been told to just put up with it rather than treat it as a real violation of their persons as they should. As a result, when women make accusations of sexual harassment or rape or whatever, we believe them as a default because you cause real psychological damage by not taking real victims of it at their word....until they get their investigation.
This is where the innocent until proven guilty part comes in. The court is what is supposed to suss out the truth of any given crime. What happened, how, how they should pay, etc. It's not perfect, but it's the system we have of discerning whether a crime has been committed.
The key difference with Bill and Trump is that there were two investigations with this as far as I know, with 2 of the 3 women claiming to be sexually harassed by him changing their stories. Only Broaddick kept hers consistent, but while there wasn't an investigation as far as I know, they were in a situation where her situation can be neither proven nor disproven, and remains a he said-she said sort of thing.
Now Trump, one big difference already is that he is a pathological liar, while Bill is only a normal kind of liar. We also have evidence that it is in his character to be predisposed to sexual harassment. There multiple recordings of him talking about how he views women as sexual objects for him to admire or use. This extends to his own infant daughter even. Plus, the multiple women coming forth give stories with extreme detail, especailly that one that was interviewing him and he just decided to kiss her. Such vivid details simply feel real.
When you get down to it, it's true that there is no absolute proof of them being harassed by Trump (yet), but Trump's character, the multiple women coming forth, and how they describe it make me believe them over him.
With Bill, while he is a sleezebag for the things he already know he did, he does not strike me as someone who doesn't have a respect for women as people and upon scrutiny, 2 of the womens stories fall apart. I'm not saying that means he didn't do it, but these factors give me some doubt. Again, sexual accusations are believed when their initially voiced because of how damaging it is to the women to not be believed, not because their automatically true. Once we scrutinize and we come away with implications that it's not what happened, for atleast 2 of the women, I atleast see it as less likely that they are telling the truth than with the women Trump alledgedly sexually assaulted.
Lastly, it's notable that Clinton isn't making these women come forward, while the Trump Campaign is clearly reaching out to these women and using them to try to smear clinton. It can't be ignored that the entire Trump support base is based around not just that Trump is an honorable, noble man who will save america, but also that Hillary is guilty of a bunch of shit that she is clearly not guilty of. There is little rationality to most of their accusations, and while guilt by association may be a fallacy, it's not inconceivable that their hatred of the Clintons is clouding their judgement. If people can unironically claim that she is a literal demon from hell, why not rapists too? When this first came out, I made a post wondering why the hell would these women support Trump when he's as much a misogynist as anyone. You have to be careful not to fall for the guilt by association fallacy, but there is an extra layer of skepticism involved when the platform from which you are shouting from has so much BS surrounding it AND is blatantly misogynistic in character.
Also, if nothing else, even if everything they say about bill is 100% true...that means nothing for Hillary herself. She's running for president