No "googly sleuthing prowess" is required. We have the accusers' stories in their own words And as I keep saying, nothing in their stories approaches this threshold of "abuse" that people keep saying.
c'mon, your googly was burnin' up! Clearly, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes the labeled 'sexual misconduct'. Nor do you have standing to completely ignore, negate and trivialize the perspective and interpretation of the women accusers, particularly in the face of the accused offering no personal event particulars/details and no comment other than to simply deny the allegations.
What in the fizzityuck does that pile of word salad even mean? I know all of those words, but they are meaningless in the order in which you have combined them. It looks like something a not-very-bright AI algorithm would spit out. If you rephrase your comment/question/whatever the **** it is, into something intelligible, I'll respond to it.
that's quite the deflection; now your second. It's really a simple question that was put to you... that you keep ignoring and deflecting from. C'mon you spent a lotta cycles in your amateur hour sleuthing to pass judgement on the accusers and discount their understanding of the events - to trivialize their accusations. With your latest statement that, "
Their stories may be true or at least partly true", you're clearly
adamantly and repeatedly holding up your personal interpretation of sexual misconduct over the veracity of the accusers accusations. I'm quite surprised the accused and his legal team didn't have your awareness and insight - why did they bother denying the allegations when they could have just taken your position that the allegations don't even rise to the level of sexual misconduct?