How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty?

[laughing dog]

How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty? This is a general question and does not require that any accusation or accuser necessarily appears credible. And please don't introduce legal arguments - this is not about the justice system.

 

[SLD]

Depends on their politics. If it’s Bill Clinton, liberals don’t believe Juanita Broadrick, and point to her inconsistencies and 20 year gap in her story. Conservatives believe her. If it’s Brett Kavanaugh, liberals believe Dr. Ford and Conservatives point to inconsistencies in her statements and the 35 year gap in her accusations. If it’s Roy Moore, 9 separate accusations with 50 supporting witnesses is not enough to convince some conservatives, but at least it was enough so that thousands stayed home on Election Day and Doug Jones won.

So is it a double standard as Broadrick recently claimed? Maybe. But after years of watching Republicans stick it to Obama, I’m glad to see the Dems give them a little payback. Fuck 'em.

SLD

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It isn't the number of accusers that i find convincing. It is the corroborating evidence from disinterested third parties, and even moreso, the evidence that is not witness based.

Statements or writings made before the accusation(s) are also very helpful, which is why it makes sense to document things when they happen.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, you can't ignore the question of credibility. One credible witness is more compelling than a dozen non-credible ones.

 

[Toni]

Depends on their politics. If it’s Bill Clinton, liberals don’t believe Juanita Broadrick, and point to her inconsistencies and 20 year gap in her story. Conservatives believe her. If it’s Brett Kavanaugh, liberals believe Dr. Ford and Conservatives point to inconsistencies in her statements and the 35 year gap in her accusations. If it’s Roy Moore, 9 separate accusations with 50 supporting witnesses is not enough to convince some conservatives, but at least it was enough so that thousands stayed home on Election Day and Doug Jones won.

So is it a double standard as Broadrick recently claimed? Maybe. But after years of watching Republicans stick it to Obama, I’m glad to see the Dems give them a little payback. Fuck 'em.

SLD

I believed Juanita Broaddrick and other allegations against Clinton and I'm generally considered to be a liberal (American version). Granted, I never cared for Bill before the allegations which did not improve my opinion.

 

[Toni]

Ya, you can't ignore the question of credibility. One credible witness is more compelling than a dozen non-credible ones.

Apparently not in the current climate.

 

[southernhybrid]

There could be hundreds of women that come forth. The Republicans don't care. I read an editorial in the Washington Post this morning that was written by three of Kav's college friends. They said that he lied during his interview. They said that he frequently drank to excess etc. They said they weren't proud of what they did while in college, but Kav had lied about his drinking while under oath and shouldn't be on SCOTUS.

The Republicans wouldn't care if he walked down 5th Ave. and shot somebody. Oh wait, that's Trump. Maybe they wouldn't vote for him if he shot somebody but at this point, I'm not even sure of that. People seem to equate this with a criminal trial. This is just about getting a life time job for an extremely powerful position. People should be outraged that this man will likely be voted for a SCOTUS appointment. The FBI was told not to pursue certain leads, so we really don't even know how much more evidence is out there. But again, this isn't a criminal trial!

I wanted Clinton to resign when he lied under oath, but this isn't the 90s. I was in the minority of Democrats back then. Things have changed a lot since then. Plus, Clinton was elected and limited to two four year terms. This is a life time appointment decided by a small number of people.

Plus, prior to Trump, 60 Senators were needed to appoint someone to SCOTUS, so that's another reason to be more thorough when vetting candidates.

 

[SLD]

There could be hundreds of women that come forth. The Republicans don't care. I read an editorial in the Washington Post this morning that was written by three of Kav's college friends. They said that he lied during his interview. They said that he frequently drank to excess etc. They said they weren't proud of what they did while in college, but Kav had lied about his drinking while under oath and shouldn't be on SCOTUS.

The Republicans wouldn't care if he walked down 5th Ave. and shot somebody. Oh wait, that's Trump. Maybe they wouldn't vote for him if he shot somebody but at this point, I'm not even sure of that. People seem to equate this with a criminal trial. This is just about getting a life time job for an extremely powerful position. People should be outraged that this man will likely be voted for a SCOTUS appointment. The FBI was told not to pursue certain leads, so we really don't even know how much more evidence is out there. But again, this isn't a criminal trial!

I wanted Clinton to resign when he lied under oath, but this isn't the 90s. I was in the minority of Democrats back then. Things have changed a lot since then. Plus, Clinton was elected and limited to two four year terms. This is a life time appointment decided by a small number of people.

Plus, prior to Trump, 60 Senators were needed to appoint someone to SCOTUS, so that's another reason to be more thorough when vetting candidates.

Yes, but to their credit, many Republicans in the Senate, including McConnell, believed the accusations against Roy Moore. But perhaps it was motivated more by their friendship with Luther Strange.

SLD

 

[laughing dog]

For some reason, people are focusing on Kavanaugh. Think about the case of Cosby or Weinstein - how many women had to come forward for you to believe these guys were guilty?

 

[BH]

I always believed much of what women said about Bill Clinton. I tend to believe the stories about Roy Moore too. I haven't been able to follow the Kavenaugh situation because I work so much.

 

[Derec]

Things have changed a lot since then.

And a lot of it for the worse.
There is no real evidence K-man tried to rape anybody.
Ford can't remember where or when the supposed assault happened and coached somebody on passing a polygraph before.
Ramirez had to think for a week (with the help of a lawyer) before she was sure it was his penis she saw at that party.
And the last accuser has backtracked from at least part of her story.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, you can't ignore the question of credibility. One credible witness is more compelling than a dozen non-credible ones.

Apparently not in the current climate.

OK, but how many people need to disagree with me for people to believe that I'm wrong?

 

[Ford]

There could be hundreds of women that come forth. The Republicans don't care.

I wonder if they even realize what they've done. Sure, they wanted Kavanaugh on the court to tip the balance for when the next abortion case comes up, but I don't think they were expecting the sexual assault thing to come up. And what they've done - by "winning" their case in the court of public spectacle, is drive a knife into the heart of the "Me Too" moment. For the past couple of years, many rich, famous, and powerful men were knocked off their perches by accusations of sexual misconduct.

The star of the biggest show on the biggest streaming service.

The head of a television network.

The most powerful movie producer in Hollywood.

A US Senator.

The list goes on, and with the exception of the President, all it took for your career to be over is a woman (or several) coming forward to tattle on your indiscretions. #MeToo became a thing, and for awhile, women were coming out with their stories of abuse and naming their abusers. The Kavanaugh hearing changed that. It was basically "what's that, honey? You say he assaulted you? Shut up. The men here have important work to do." After watching what Dr. Ford was subject to, and how the confirmation steam rolled right along, I've got a bad feeling that a whole lot of women who were about to raise their hands and say "Me Too" will be rethinking that decision. At best you might be disbelieved. At worst you might be dragged into the spotlight and publicly pilloried for daring to speak out against a powerful man.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if they stop fighting because of one loss then they deserve to have their movement die.

 

[starwater]

There could be hundreds of women that come forth. The Republicans don't care.

I wonder if they even realize what they've done. Sure, they wanted Kavanaugh on the court to tip the balance for when the next abortion case comes up, but I don't think they were expecting the sexual assault thing to come up. And what they've done - by "winning" their case in the court of public spectacle, is drive a knife into the heart of the "Me Too" moment. For the past couple of years, many rich, famous, and powerful men were knocked off their perches by accusations of sexual misconduct.

The star of the biggest show on the biggest streaming service.

The head of a television network.

The most powerful movie producer in Hollywood.

A US Senator.

The list goes on, and with the exception of the President, all it took for your career to be over is a woman (or several) coming forward to tattle on your indiscretions. #MeToo became a thing, and for awhile, women were coming out with their stories of abuse and naming their abusers. The Kavanaugh hearing changed that. It was basically "what's that, honey? You say he assaulted you? Shut up. The men here have important work to do." After watching what Dr. Ford was subject to, and how the confirmation steam rolled right along, I've got a bad feeling that a whole lot of women who were about to raise their hands and say "Me Too" will be rethinking that decision. At best you might be disbelieved. At worst you might be dragged into the spotlight and publicly pilloried for daring to speak out against a powerful man.

I hope I'm wrong.

I see your point. But as a female and other women I have talked to - all this has done is raise the anger, rage and outrage by several degrees. This is not done by any means, it's now a war.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Well, if they stop fighting because of one loss then they deserve to have their movement die.

Don't you mean "if we stop fighting" or do you not see this as your problem too?

 

[Derec]

is drive a knife into the heart of the "Me Too" moment.

If ever a movement needed a heart to the knife, it's #MeToo. That, and #BLM.

The list goes on, and with the exception of the President, all it took for your career to be over is a woman (or several) coming forward to tattle on your indiscretions.

And do you think that's a good state of affairs? Really?

 

[Toni]

Ya, you can't ignore the question of credibility. One credible witness is more compelling than a dozen non-credible ones.

Apparently not in the current climate.

OK, but how many people need to disagree with me for people to believe that I'm wrong?

Doesn't matter as long as *I* disagree with you. Then you are automatically wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

There could be hundreds of women that come forth. The Republicans don't care.

I wonder if they even realize what they've done. Sure, they wanted Kavanaugh on the court to tip the balance for when the next abortion case comes up, but I don't think they were expecting the sexual assault thing to come up. And what they've done - by "winning" their case in the court of public spectacle, is drive a knife into the heart of the "Me Too" moment. For the past couple of years, many rich, famous, and powerful men were knocked off their perches by accusations of sexual misconduct.

The star of the biggest show on the biggest streaming service.

The head of a television network.

The most powerful movie producer in Hollywood.

A US Senator.

The list goes on, and with the exception of the President, all it took for your career to be over is a woman (or several) coming forward to tattle on your indiscretions. #MeToo became a thing, and for awhile, women were coming out with their stories of abuse and naming their abusers. The Kavanaugh hearing changed that. It was basically "what's that, honey? You say he assaulted you? Shut up. The men here have important work to do." After watching what Dr. Ford was subject to, and how the confirmation steam rolled right along, I've got a bad feeling that a whole lot of women who were about to raise their hands and say "Me Too" will be rethinking that decision. At best you might be disbelieved. At worst you might be dragged into the spotlight and publicly pilloried for daring to speak out against a powerful man.

I hope I'm wrong.

I think you are underestimating women.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think you are underestimating women.

Vastly

 

[ZiprHead]

Depends on their politics. If it’s Bill Clinton, liberals don’t believe Juanita Broadrick, and point to her inconsistencies and 20 year gap in her story.

Just as an aside and not trying to derail, when push came to shove and Broadrick was asked to make her charge in a legal affidavit, she signed stating that Clinton did not rape her.