I don't even like the guy, but yea. Twenty year old allegations can't be anything much more than "He said... She said.." stuff...which is why the law has been on a fishing expedition to get around this by using "similar fact evidence" ("evidence relating to misconduct other than that with which the accused is charged, but which may be seen as rendering it more likely that the accused committed that offence") and the "Moorov doctrine" ( "...a mechanism which applies where a person is accused of two or more separate offences, connected in time and circumstances. In such a case, where each of the offences charged is spoken to by a single credible witness, that evidence may corroborate, and be corroborated by, the other single witnesses, so as to enable the conviction of the accused on all the charges."

-Legally this is a pretty dodgy approach. Innocent or guilty its obvious the establishment wants to nail him.