We've reached that point in the election cycle where my standard of proof goes WAAAAAY up.
Anything damaging that comes up now will likely have no chance of being rebutted effectively, even if it turns out to be completely false. (Dan Rather/George Bush Killian documents)
Campaigns have been pulling this crap for years, but have lately turned it into an artform. And the unbelievable levels of scumminess in these 2 campaigns makes it likely to be even worse. So here's where I am:
1. Someone claims something - not listening.
2. Someone releases evidence from non-solid sources - not listening.
3. Someone heavily partisan releases something - not listening.
4. Someone releases heavily edited or redacted "evidence" - I'm skeptical
5. Someone releases something that looks too good (bad) to be true, but is written or recorded - I'm skeptical, but checking it out
6. Someone releases evidence that might be easily forged or manipulated with no backup - I'm skeptical, but checking it out.
7. Someone releases evidence that's not easily forged or manipulated - I'm listening
8. Someone releases good evidence that's backed up by other testimony - I'm starting to think I might believe you.
Obviously, the reliability of the source and the amount of evidence matters.
Wikileaks falls into category's 5 through 7, but I give them extra credit because they have been remarkably accurate lately.
Sexual assault allegations fall in the first category, which sucks, because if they are true, the assaulter should rot in hell. That said, if it takes allegations of sexual assault to finally get you to realize Trump is truly awful, you are willfully ignoring evidence. (Hillary sucks too).