The woman tries to provoke debate outside of the courtroom (which is what the courtroom is supposed to be for) and she acts like 60+ women who tell the same story (with no tangible evidence mind you) are all telling the truth, even though it's been proven that some Cosby accusers are flat-out lying.
Of course some are flat-out lying, because when you have thirty women all come out and accuse him of the same crime, it's easy for a couple extra to hook on to the case in hopes of winning big cash during a civil trial afterwards.
But to say that they are all lying is pretty much ridiculous. Cosby has admitted to drugging women with Quaaludes. It's not impossible that he raped far less women than is alleged, but he's definitely a rapist.
He doesn't deny it anymore because he knows that people like you will say "uuhhhh he's lying what a forgetin' rapist he should die in prison the ape". It's a waste of effort to try to cover for yourself when the stubborn, ignorant-ass public opinion is that you're guilty, despite never going to court.
He doesn't deny it because he's a sick old man that literally does not have the energy to put on an act anymore. A criminal court is one thing, but when someone is simultaneously accused of the same crime by dozens of people, and then proceeds to admit to parts of the crimes after the fact, it is absolutely ridiculous to not believe that they're guilty.
Does that mean that he should be tried harder because more people have accused him? No, everyone is always innocent until proven guilty, but
you, as a person, have the ability to look at cases like these and realize that it's extremely unlikely that Cosby didn't rape anyone.
Look at the OJ case. Everyone knows that he murdered Nicole Simpson, or at least had some sort of direct hand in it, but courts were unable to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he deserved life in prison. However, only a few years later, the guy goes and commits armed robbery. The court of public opinion is often more accurate than courts because people's opinions aren't bound to acquit anyone who is not 100% proven guilty.
But as for Annoying Orange, I don't really know whether I personally consider the evidence against him to be convincing. For one, he's practically the most hated person in America right now, and there's a huge incentive for anyone to do something that could possibly hurt his candidacy. Also, frivolously accusing politicians of crimes is something that happens shockingly often. There was an activist in Phoenix that accused our mayor of diddling some kid, and admitted it was false after having his bail paid for by the mayor personally (cause he's a chill dude).
Either way, I seriously, seriously doubt that they're gonna mount enough evidence to get him convicted, but the damage is already done. It's not necessarily ethical for journalists to sensationalize rape cases without evidence, but you'd be pretty much crazy not to report on a story that's as popular as that. He would have still lost because of the debates and the groping-scandal alone, and the rape charges are just the last nail in the coffin.
Poll