Ah, good. You do know there's also no evidence of any "actual attacks" by Bill Clinton, right?
No, I know exactly the opposite.
Lewinsky was consensual, by her own testimony.
Lewinsky wasn't claiming there was an attack upon her, nor is anyone else. Sexual harassment is a non-consensual situation, even if the victim claims she agreed to every second of the activity. Coercion doesn't have to be at the point of a knife. The fact that everyone agrees the acts took place is evidence, which you are denying exists.
Now we're finally getting down to business. Either we believe women or we don't.
Not in the criminal justice system. There it takes evidence. People keep claiming that Trump has committed rape and is a pedophile, without so much as a single day in court. It takes more than a she-said to convict someone.
The hypocrisy is not that anyone is excusing actual attacks for one side but not the other. The hypocrisy is that we were told that the women who came forward regarding Bill Clinton's alleged attacks were "bimbo eruptions" and "that's what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park". (And in the same kind of respect for women we got that it was "putting lipstick on a pig" regarding Sarah Palin.) When it is Trump being accused, the same people are saying "we must listen to every woman".
If you want to take sexual assault off the table for both candidates,
Who said anything about doing that? I think it needs to be proven before it becomes accepted as a fact. And I'm sorry, but one person telling 6 or 600 people that "Trump did this bad thing to me" doesn't make it any more true, and it doesn't mean that there are 6 or 600 people who can corroborate that bad thing. I can tell 6000 people today that you held me up at gunpoint last night; exactly zero of them can corroborate your action or lack thereof. People who think People Magazine is a source of legal advice and knowledge are naive at best.