Partisans, Wielding Money, Begin Seeking to Exploit Harassment Claims

I highly doubt that they were. That does nothing to say that the groups publicly offering money today for people to come forward against specific members of the opposing party aren't looking to do so.

Yes, that is still support. That also isn't what the article linked is talking about... as it said:

“If you’re getting money from someone who has an ax to grind against the person you’re accusing of unlawful activity, that most certainly opens the door to a line of questioning that very well could undermine the veracity of your client’s story,” said Douglas H. Wigdor, a leading New York employment lawyer who has brought a barrage of lawsuits against powerful men and institutions in recent years.
​

If we want to start staking these assholes that perpetrate these assaults to the wall, then we would do well to not leave our cases open to having more holes than a block of swiss cheese poked in them, because you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have lawyers willing and able to use such a thing as being offered money to come forward as a means to sow doubt in the jury's mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trying to characterize the people pointing to the weaponizing of abuse accusations as deniers of abuse itself is a Republican media tactic, pace the local authoritarian twits.

That's because weaponizing abuse accusations is a rightwing, media-controlling, corporate associated, largely Republican effort. When reason is damaged, removed from the field, power and money win.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the thing that gets me is this loss of reason. Why can't we both believe the victim and verify their claims before implementing immediate punishment against the accused? Obviously, if they are in a situation where the two interact daily for some reason, then separate them, but yeah. I don't see why "innocent until proven guilty" and "believing the victim" have to be mutually exclusive ideals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The thing that gets me is this loss of reason. Why can't we both believe the victim and verify their claims before shunting them into mandatory processes designed to suppress those claims, intimidating them by accusing them of crimes, prosecuting them, or trying to drum them out of school in order to help an accused assailant evade a no-contact order?

So, y'know, who?

You keep making up sick bullshit to whine about, so who?

 

??? Not sure what you are talking about here.

In the case of Roy Moore, news organizations DID work to verify their claims. They verified that mall employees had been warned about his predatory tactics. They compared his inscriptions to his victims to his handwriting. They followed up on the stories with friends and relatives who could confirm those stories.

But that's not even the issue here, since there was no "implementation of punishment" against him. The statute of limitations has long since expired for his crimes; there will be no punishment. (Other than a loss of popularity of course, which is a natural consequence of child molestation.)

For the most part, no one is trying to convict Moore (or Trump, or Franken) of anything. They do want his accusers heard, which is a good thing.

 

Why is who?

What does "believing the victim" entail?

Sure, they just are not in politics anymore. Unproven accusations being aired, especially as a political weapon for one political ideology to attack another, is wrong and will lead to horrible consequences. The ones that should be hearing those accusers are the police.

 

Just seems like there's this mindset that one can either believe the victim and demand immediate action, or they are questioning the victim.

Makes it sound like a false dilemma to me... *shrug* as I said - seems like going off the deep end is a great way to give wrongdoers an easy out for their supporters (and lawyers) to exploit.

 

Yes, if you hold a mindset that it just seems like there is a particular mindset, then so it will seem.

Meanwhile, who and what are you actually on about?

 

Me too; I don't see those as the only two options. In most cases:

1) try to determine if the person is credible (they usually are, but unfortunately not everyone is)
2) demand an investigation to find out what really happened, and THEN
3) if it turns out something did happen, demand action.

 

Which would seem to be a practical, reasonable, and legal process to me.