Comparisons of sexual misconduct claims against other US presidents

1. Presidents with the most public accusations: volume and legal outcomes

Recent coverage highlights that Donald Trump has been publicly accused by large numbers of women — reporting cites "more than 27" and at least 25–26 named accusations in various pieces and timelines — and that a jury found him civilly liable in a high‑profile case (E. Jean Carroll), marking a rare court adjudication involving a former U.S. president ^{[3] [5] [6]}. By contrast, Bill Clinton’s record in the sources shows multiple allegations including harassment and assault claims and public debate about consensual relationships (e.g., Monica Lewinsky) and non‑consensual allegations (e.g., Juanita Broaddrick and others); some allegations produced litigation or public inquiries while others remained unresolved in court ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Historic pattern: sex scandals are not new to the presidency

Reporting and historical summaries place contemporary controversies in a longer arc: at least half a dozen presidents before modern times were tied to sexual scandals or alleged relationships — from Thomas Jefferson’s liaison with Sally Hemings to other 20th‑century incidents — showing that accusations of sexual impropriety have long touched the presidency ^{[4] [7]}. These retrospectives emphasize that standards, media scrutiny, and evidence availability have changed over time, complicating direct one‑to‑one comparisons across eras ^[4].

3. Types of allegations and evidentiary differences

The sources differentiate between kinds of claims: consensual extramarital affairs, allegations of harassment or groping based on witness accounts or recordings (e.g., the 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape for Trump), civil liability findings, and criminal charges or indictments in some cases. News outlets and summaries note significant variation in substantiation: some claims resulted in settlements or court findings, others in media accounts or public accusations that were never legally resolved ^{[1] [6] [4]}.

4. Media, politics, and credibility: how partisanship shapes perception

Coverage shows partisan lenses strongly affect public reception and political consequences. For example, surveys and commentary during the Clinton-era controversies showed divergent views along partisan lines about credibility ^[2]. Likewise, after 2016 and later reporting, many national outlets catalogued numerous accusations against Trump while his defenders disputed or minimized them; outlets also noted defendants’ denials and legal defenses ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Broader institutional context: nominees and associates

Reporting around recent administrations underscores that allegations are not confined to presidents themselves: cabinet nominees and close associates have faced misconduct claims, which influences how comparisons are drawn between presidencies and their broader personnel choices ^{[8] [9]}. Analysts point out that an administration's tolerance for accused aides or nominees becomes part of the judgment about its approach to sexual misconduct ^[8].

6. Limits of available reporting and what’s not established here

The supplied sources document many allegations and at least one civil finding against a former president, but they do not provide a comprehensive legal tally for every president or a definitive list of proven criminal convictions tied to presidential sexual misconduct (available sources do not mention a complete accounting of convictions across presidencies) ^{[3] [4]}. They also do not settle disputed factual claims where sources conflict or where allegations were never litigated to judgment ^{[2] [1]}.

7. Takeaway for readers weighing comparisons

Comparisons are meaningful only when readers note differences in quantity, type, contemporaneous evidence, and legal outcome: some presidents faced allegations that resulted in court judgments or settlements, others were the subject of unproven or historically attenuated claims, and partisan framing has consistently shaped public perception ^{[1] [4] [6]}. For rigorous comparison, consult case‑by‑case reporting and legal records cited in the articles above rather than relying on simple rankings ^{[5] [7]}.