What is the criteria for “credibly accused”? Accused is easy enough. One simply must make an accusation against you. But what criteria is used to elevate that credible?
witnesses, accusations, court trials, investigations by law, settlements and outright admission.
Some of them have more of one type than the other but most of the people mentioned in this political context are not unlucky people who only have one or two incidents.
That does not mean the other people are saints. But most seem to at least not glorify in it, and many are content to exploit and rob the working class without such public incidents.
Not that I care about or even like these guys, but just playing devils advocate (mostly because very few people here do) but witnesses, accusations, court trials, and investigations by law is just due process. Also, with an outright admission, we’ve gone past the point of a mere accusation (credible or otherwise). I suppose a settlement is the only one I would attach to credible. Most people aren’t going to pay up unless they’re guilty.
