However, it's also a completely immaterial to the subject of Donald Trump's behavior. And and to the subject of FB board member, and YC advisor Peter Thiel's attempt to obfuscate and normalize that "behavior" (i.e. sexual violence) -- even more so.
Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard.
Broaddrick denied her accusations in an affidavit, and later retracted that denial. That destroys her credibility.
Edit: The only legit accusation is Paula Jones's, since Bill settled that case. Regardless, this is Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Hillary attacked Paula.
I don't have time to get into the fine-grain of it with you -- but if that's your impression then I'd suggest you look more closely into the basic event chronology. (What you're saying about counter-testimony has some relevance to the Wiley case; but to the Jones and Broaddrick cases, none to speak of).
Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard.
The word of "one person" (who has been established to be pathological dissembler and obfuscator on the subject of, well, just about anything he opens his mouth about) against the generally consistent and credible statements of at least 15 accusers, to be precise. Combined with his irrefutable statements on tape.
Again... it all comes down to the "would you hire this person?" standard.
What he says on the tape (in conjunction with perfectly credible statements from multiple witnesses) tells you everything you need to know. And BTW, the standard shouldn't be whether he's been criminally convicted or not; but "preponderance of evidence".
As in the, you know, rational, pragmatic "Would you even consider (for so much as half a second) hiring someone who made statements like that, in conjunction with statements his victims? Let alone electing him to the office of dog catcher?" sense.