We have, on record, him describing sexual assault. With his own words. On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them. On top of the fact that there is zero evidence in favor of that statement.
That's the difference. And you would definitely know this if you weren't being disingenuous.
Yet other women have consistently claimed over decades that Clinton sexually assaulted them. And today women are coming forward accusing Trump of sexual assault.
There seems to be very little difference; both men have probably assaulted women in the past and abused their power to get away with it. I don't think arbitrarily slanting the narrative to defend one and condemn the other serves anybody. In fact, sweeping sexual assault under the rug when it doesn't serve your political agenda is a pretty horrible thing to do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bill-hillary-c...
The difference is how you spin the headlines and the facts. Both parties are guilty. Both parties feel only other side is doing it or say but look at the other website or magazine.
Huff is full of titles Trump is sexual predator without facts, just talks. Breitbart is full of stories Bill is rapist. So what's the difference?
It's all the same shit. It is just your bias talking.