just addressing the argumentative fallacies lefties committing in this thread (gee, what a surprise, eh?)
You see, it is possible to prove something did occur, like providing a birth certificate. Why doesn't he? IDK. If he doesn't have his original, why doesn't he just say so? My guess is he probably has it, it probably says he was born in Hawaii, but there is something else on there that people can use against him. It today's era of gotcha politics, politicians try to avoid gotchas at all costs. May be something significant, probably not.
But one can prove a positive.
However, one cannot prove a negative, that is something did not happen. You see, in this case, the accusers would have to prove a rape occured.
So although they look like consistent arguments on the surface, they're not. It's the same type of bullshit politicians pull on people on a regular basis and get away with it because people just don't know the difference.
the fallacy of "Ad Ignorantiam", an appeal to ignorance. AKA as "burden of proof fallacy".