According to OP “We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.”
So, believing women is proof, and not only proof, but proof so strong that we wouldn’t even need the Epstein files. You might think that believing women doesn’t mean convicting every person who is accused, but OP sure seems to think so.
ech@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
How does “We wouldn’t need [evidence] if society just trusted women” fit your argument?
november@lemmy.vg 4 weeks ago
The Epstein list isn’t the only evidence they would find.
Also, if women’s testimony isn’t good enough, why is a list written by a man good enough?
ech@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Evidence directly from the suspect(s) is basically a confession. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 4 weeks ago
Then use that evidence.
november@lemmy.vg 4 weeks ago
That would require an investigation. Which never happened because nobody listened to the women who spoke up.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Being in the Epstein log books isn’t evidence of sexual assault comparable to simply listening to Virginia Giuffre.
And, ffs, Testimony Is Evidence. If a woman says “I’ve been raped, that’s the guy who did it”, that’s evidence of the accused committing a rape.
Bongles@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
UnderpantsWeevil raped me.
novibe@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
You do know what a testimony is right? 😂
Would you be willing to say that in court, under threat of perjury?