General Discussion

that is, IF EVIDENCE EXISTS (and from quick skim, it sounds like it does)

he should be tried IN A COURT for sexual assault and any related offenses that can be proven?

If he is guilty, I want him tried and sentenced appropriately.

If he is not guilty - that is, if there is NOT evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and he denies it - people should shut the fuck up. Including his accusers.

Why do I say that: many women don't accuse men of assault BECAUSE they know they cannot prove it - and often that is the right thing, sadly. Bad shit happens to all of us in life, and we find we have no recourse. We move on. (Is there ANYONE reading this who hasn't had that? Maybe not sexual assault, but other things like theft and vandalism?)

Probably the next worse thing to a sexual assault, is an untrue accusation of one. Not provable doesn't mean not true. But not provable DOES mean that the accused might be innocent, and the accuser might be a liar. (see also: why not to have a death penalty.) And how the fuck is the public supposed to know? So look, if you can't take the rapist down this time, next time make sure you get the evidence.

One other comment: maybe politicians shouldn't get drunk with staffers? Or maybe just not get drunk at all in public?