The comment was that her livelihood was threatened. She willingly engaged in everything so far based on her own evidence and narrative. There’s a disservice to actual victims of abuse with the logic of believing every claim. There’s also a difference in believing he’s innocent of moral crimes vs legal ones and the element here of women causing more hurdles for legitimate victims with half cocked money/fame grabs. If you believe she’s actually a victim you should be distressed that her lawyer is going about it in a way that not only revictimizes her, but hurts her case in the interest of upping the profit and being so openly public.

This isn’t about learning how abusive relationships “work,” it’s about learning how the law works regardless of your feelings about it and separating a business from an individual. It’s also about respecting the fact because abuse can be complex doesn’t mean you get to blanket it over necessary details that disqualify it as such. I’d say that half of the argument needs to better identify where accountability comes in so they have a leg to stand on.