Finding a charge made by one person to be credible does not require me to consider a charge made by some other person to be credible. Charges of criminal behavior should be assessed individually, and the credibility of the person making the charge, as well as the credibility of the charge itself, must be weighed.
Some claim falsely it does, that because some span of time elapsed between the acts alleged and the woman's reporting of same, all should be viewed as identical. It is true that persons subjected to sexual assault sometimes take their time to come forward. It is also true people will often wait to launch a lie till the time seems right.
In the case of charges against Trump, Moore, and Kavanaugh, the persons laying the accusations are solid and credible, as are the accusations they make. They are not solitary accusers, in each instance there were multiple people coming forward. In each instance the accusations were consistent with known behavior, from the well documented media circus of 'Trump, the playboy', to what everyone knows is common behavior at beer-bash jock parties of the sort Kavanaugh himself documented attending, to the foul odor of pious fraud Moore has always reeked of, in his extreme denunciation of perversion in others. which so often betrays a guilty secret trying to break out in confession.
Reade has not just altered her claims over recent years, but has made them more extreme as each version failed to excite much attention. That is not a pattern of a truthful person, coming forward after a lapse of years, but the pattern of a calculating liar who is seeking to find what level of charge it will take to win notoriety, and damage the target of the lie. Even more telling is that when Reade finally swore out a police complaint, she omitted to include the name of the person she accuses. If someone will not swear to a charge under penalty of perjury, there is no reason whatever to believe that person making the charge when not under oath. Note that none of this makes reference to the well-evidenced flakiness of Reade, which opens the possibility she is simply a fabulist, or to her adherence to Putin and Russia, or to the obvious axes to grind which every person promoting her story has. These are, however, things which damage her credibility further.
It should be noted, too, that hypocrisy is dead as a charge of any weight in political life. No one is, and no one ought to be, deterred by a charge of hypocrisy from pressing the line best suited to the political needs of the present day. Well-meaning, good-hearted people who tend to the left need to learn not to allow their better natures to be taken advantage of by vicious scum on the right, and splinterest wreckers on the far left, who enlist them in their charges against figures of the center left, by exhorting them to 'be consistent' and telling them 'don't be hypocrites'. The proper response to attempts at this is a hearty "Fuck off! Nobody cares what a rancid piece of dogshit like you thinks!" Or words to that effect....
Only attack the enemy, the christo-fascist right.
Never, ever, attack people who are on your side.
If you want one quick reason why the right wing wields power well out of proportion to the popularity of its policies, it is that they adhere to this rule, and we on the left do not.
"Defeat of a dangerous enemy is something to be for."
= new reply since forum marked as read
