In a court of law, it doesn't. But in the world of objective reality, it absolutely, 100% does.
We are so, so lucky that hardly anyone thinks like you.
There is nobody who lives their life the way you seem to be advocating. Your life is not a courtroom, and you're handicapping your own capacity for critical thought if you want to act like there's an imaginary set of rules floating above your head that you dare not defy in your private life. The rest of the world does not feel beholden to this. If someone at work asks you how you're feeling and you respond by citing your right to medical privacy, they're going to treat you like an asshole. If you try to pay for something at a store with an unusual denomination of currency and tell the manager they have the burden of proof in determining its authenticity, they're going to ask you to leave. If your significant other asks you if you're cheating on them and you respond by saying they need evidence before they start making slanderous accusations, they're going to view that suspiciously. These are all normal human interactions in normal life, the exact same as private citizens discussing whether or not they believe Trump to have committed sexual assault in the past. You know all this, because you're a functioning adult who has a life outside of the Internet, and I'm convinced that we wouldn't be getting this monocle-popping "muh ethics!" response from you on any other subject than a controversial political race.
I could probably quite easily convince a large portion of the IRC to say you're a witch and that they've witnessed to you performing demonic rituals.
Shitposts from pseudo-anonymous screen names and Twitter handles have no credibility, and if that was the extent of the accusations against Trump, we'd be having a very different discussion. I would be very impressed if you could get anyone on IRC to attach their real name to a claim of me being a witch and genuinely try to publicize it by going to the media.
The point of having due process is that accusing someone, especially without actually getting the state to charge them, is completely risk-free. There's no downside to saying "this person sexually assaulted me 20 years ago". You might say "there's no reason for them to lie" but the fact is that there's no reason for them not to lie, either.
I disagree. By accusing him, they've subjected themselves to endless scrutiny of their behavior and private lives by the media and the public, opened themselves up to sexual and personal judgment from both well-meaning skeptics like Pete and ogres like Thork, invited potential legal action from Trump himself (as well as, dare I say, possible non-legal retribution from his devoted fans), and ensured that their names will be forever associated with all this on the public record, where potential employers, friends, and others can read all about it with a simple Google search of their name. Even if one of them were to go to court and have it be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump assaulted them, it still wouldn't look good to be attached to this, and if they were more or less proved to be lying or wrong, they'd risk becoming a pariah for the rest of their life. It's not as simple as "Trump raped me, kthxbai."
Believing an accusation as strong as sexual assault without any genuine evidence of the act is as immoral as it is unjust.
I don't see how
belief can itself be interpreted as moral or immoral. We don't exactly choose what we find to be compelling or sincere, or what we see as inauthentic or unbelievable. Anyway, I've explained my reasoning for believing that Trump has most likely sexually assaulted at least one person in the past. It wouldn't be admissible in court, but thankfully, we're not in court, and so Trump's due process rights are entirely intact. It's just one of the reasons why I believe that he's a garbage human being and his presidency will forever be a stain on this country.