WIY
In other words if someone clearly states that certain acts are reprehensible if proven to take palce.
However said person also states that one cannot destroy a person and along with it his entire family, nor can they slander a whole community without any proof what so ever other then one persons word.
Then that person is “covering up”
In other words no longer is the slightest shred of proof needed.
Or perhaps you mean that if a young attractive girl convinces 12 jurors in NYC that a middle aged religous man did unspeakable acts to her for a period of several years without her parents having a clue and she kept quiet for years out of “fear”, a fear that seemed not to have prevented her from doing anything else that she pleased whether her community approved of it or not.
That constitues proof.
Oh and the fact that millions of American citizens stated they viewed BO as more competent on the economy also is clear proof that he is.
Just wait for the boom times they a’comin.