You have proof of motive or just assuming?
What's your motive for that assumption?
Proof of what? I'm speaking generally, about no case specifically. I just don't put much stock in the stories of people who waited 10 years to "come forward" one week before an election, regardless of their political affiliation. I don't need proof to be skeptical of their stories. They had 10 years to come forward if it was true, but they waited until an election? Why? If it is important to reveal that information today, it was important to reveal that information a year ago, 5 years ago, the day after it happened. The implication is clear, that the primary motive is not the accusation but what you receive from it.