About Andrew Tate, I'm obviously not in his target audience, and from what I know about him which is limited, I very much do not like him.
But he has the right to express his POV no matter how damaging and toxic.
What I'm curious about now is on what basis are his defenders claiming he is innocent of what he's being charged with?
I don't know either way, but it feels to me his defenders are reacting only in a tribal manner, portraying an obviously extremely aggressive man as some kind of victim, and I'm not seeing any basis in fact.