It is petty if it specifically avoids mention of any of the evidence, and instead invents groundless personal accusations.
Hancock is being proved right about his accusers.
Hancock is being proved right about his accusers.
But inventing spurious ad hominem accusations instead of offering a plausible counter-narrative is not a good look.
"He will get to the edge of something, but he won't say it, because he knows that his followers already know it. He can say, 'I didn't say that,' and he didn't say it, but everyone knew what he said because it was already known, right?"
How much accusation do you need?