# The Democratic Sexual Assault Playbook **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 30, 2018, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210 "2018-09-30T11:53:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/81 "2018-10-01T22:52:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Oddly, I have not seen hardly any GOP defense of K. Instead they have attacked Ford: she is lying, she isn’t really a psychologist, that isn’t her real name, it was her fault since she should have known better, she was hired by Feinstein, etc. Attacking the victim, rape apology, the Big Lie. Don’t forget repeated questioning on who paid for this, who paid for that, planting the seed of the misconception that she’s profiting from this without actually saying it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2018, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/82 "2018-10-01T23:31:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > It wouldn’t necessarily have to be a woman “recruited” at all. There are no doubt some women who are rabidly pro-right or pro-left that they’d be willing to voluntarily go out on a kamikaze false-accusation mission to take down a prominent D or R. > > Such people haven’t appeared yet […] As somebody pointed out in another of these discussions, there most definitely **have** been false-accusation missions already: specifically, false-flag accusations designed to discredit real accusations. [This article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/27/a-botched-sting-with-a-phony-roy-moore-accuser-was-supposed-to-discredit-the-media-like-similar-schemes-it-did-the-opposite/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e610aa9a098f) recounts how James O’Keefe of “Project Veritas” recruited a false-accuser with a fake sexual-abuse allegation against then-candidate Roy Moore, and also describes a similar fake allegation against Harvey Weinstein by an operative working for a company hired by Weinstein himself. So the notion of a deliberately planned false accusation for political purposes is nothing new at all. > [@Shodan](#): > > As I said, if and when allegations with the same level of evidence are made against a liberal nominee, the sides will flip-flop instantly. That’s not something that can be cited, but it is true nonetheless. In fact, it is disproved by, e.g., [the case of Ruben Kihuen (D-NV)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Kihuen#Sexual_misconduct_allegations), who was accused of sexually harassing and touching a female campaign finance director in 2016. AFAIK there was zero documentary evidence presented that actually demonstrated that Kihuen did what he’s accused of, any more than there was in Kavanaugh’s case. But Kihuen’s fellow Democrats believed his accuser and called on him to step down, and he decided not to run for re-election this year. Sorry **Shodan** , but you can’t scare liberals by warning us that “our guys” might get accused of sexual harassment too. We’ve **already** had several cases where “our guys” are accused of sexual harassment, and we are not in fact “flip-flopping” to a Republican posture of disbelief and denial. Like it or not, Democrats as a group are looking way more ethical and principled than Republicans as a group on the whole sexual-abuse-allegations thing, even if it’s meant that we’ve had to willingly sacrifice some credibly-alleged abusers who were otherwise helpful to “our side”. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/83 "2018-10-02T01:19:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No. But think about it - an anonymous accusation, from someone who does not the matter pursued, who offers no evidence, no corroboration, no witnesses, thirty six years after the fact, and who is not even sure exactly where or when it happened. Ford apparently wanted this anonymous accusation, **in and of itself, to be used to torpedo the nomination.** …is that what she wanted? Really? I think you are looking at this through a slanted lens. Ford didn’t want to come forward. Because coming forward would mean death threats, slander, abuse, being labeled by the media as a liar. It would mean a complete upheaval of not only her life, but her immediate families lives, her friends, her neighbours. Coming forward would mean that many, if not most people would not believe her. Because “not believing” is the default in society. Its what we do. You can check out the [thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=862688)in the pit if you want anecdotal examples. Or you could go down to the local police station and talk to their victim support people. Everything she feared would happen has happened. So her fears were entirely reasonable. So why did Ford come public? > [@Slate](#): > > After weighing her options, Ford says that she decided to\*\*\*\* pursue her “civic duty” \*\*\*\*and called the office of her congresswoman, California Rep. Anna Eshoo. Ford also said that she put in an anonymous tip to the Washington Post. Neither the paper nor the congresswoman got back to her before Kavanaugh’s nomination was made public > **[Christine Blasey Ford’s Explanation of Why She Came Forward When She Did...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-hearing-explanation-timing.html)** > > Ford explained why she reached out before Kavanaugh was named as a nominee. If we assume for the sake of debate that what Ford has said was true: then how in good conscious could you allow a man who had sexually assaulted her sit on the highest court of the land? As to why she decided to come forward and stand behind her story? > [@CNN](#): > > But Ford said she ultimately decided to come forward because reporters were outside her home, and in one instance, Ford said she mistook a reporter who came to one of her graduate school classes as a student. > > “At that point I thought enough was enough,” Ford said. > **[Live updates: Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford hearing on sex...](https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-ford-sexual-assault-hearing/h_3c7548bda148a000c2f48b27de117b2c)** > > Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who has accused him of sexual assault, are testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Follow here for the latest. She came forward because the media had her name and it was only a matter of time before her name came out. None of this seems unreasonable to me. Does any of it sound unreasonable to you? > [@](#): > > So Feinstein, seeing that nothing else was going to work, threw Ford under the bus, violated her wishes by leaking, or allowing to be leaked, Ford’s identity to the press. These are extraordinary allegations. Feinstein denies leaking the [letter](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409369-feinstein-hits-back-at-gop-i-didnt-leak-ford-letter). The Intercept denies the letter either came from Feinstein or Feinstein’s [staff](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/intercept-editor-clarifies-feinsteins-staff-didnt-leak). Is the Intercept lying? If you have proof that Feinstein or her staff did as you claim I’d ask that you post that evidence here. > [@](#): > > So then it _was_ investigated, and found out that, surprise surprise, there was no evidence, no corroboration, no witnesses to back it up, and Ford didn’t even mention Kavanaugh’s name until thirty six years after the fact. Would it surprise you to find out how common this is? I mean, just spend a few minutes looking at the [hashtag](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WhyIDidntReport&src=tyah). > [@](#): > > That’s why outing an anonymous accuser is a bad idea, for both the accuser and the subject of the allegation. If this is what bothers you so much then I suggest you focus your attention on finding the real person who leaked Ford’s identity. Let us know when you’ve found the anser. > [@](#): > > It’s not fair to anyone. Certainly not to Ford, and not to Kavanaugh either. > > Regards, > Shodan I hope you spend the rest of your days, roaming the earth, until you find the real leaker and bring them to justice. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/84 "2018-10-02T01:42:20Z")
“Yeah, them Demoncrats betters be carefull cause the akusations of cereal murder ,child molestatin, and CANABALISM was us puplicans playing nice!!!11!” CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/85 "2018-10-02T01:46:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Like I said, the definition of “credible” will change when it’s a liberal. This will be hotly denied, but it is the case nonetheless. …I went to look up what I wrote here on these boards about Al Franken when it came out that one of his accusers went on TV to claim that President Obama was born in Kenya. I wrote this: > [@Now, Al Franken](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/176): > > …I don’t think her claims on TV are relevant to evaluating the accusers honesty or plausibility at all. Just like I don’t think what she was wearing was relevant, if she was wearing make up or not or what her sexual history was. > > Do you know why sex workers almost never come forward to the police when they are sexually harassed or assaulted? Its because they are judged on their job: they are judged on their past history, and they are (more often than not) dismissed because of a perceived lack of credibility. Accusations should be treated on their merit. And this one has plenty of merit. We have a photo. We have a credible story. We have a contrite accused. You are digging into her past for one reason only: to find a reason to disbelieve her, to dismiss her. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you are doing it for any honorable reason. There were plenty of people in that thread who did demonstrate the kind of hypocrisy that you are talking about. But there were plenty of people, myself included, who did not. And thats the thing. Enough of the “liberal side” stood by our values and we held the line. We didn’t let the hypocrites win. They said “Al Franken should go” and they forced him out. We don’t see any of that happening here. Nominations to the Supreme Court are such a rare and important thing that one would expect the Republicans to have taken the process a fuck-load-more-seriously than they have done. There were plenty of other people they could have nominated that would have sailed through without this drama. The only reason the nomination is being held up is because it appears that Brett Kavanaugh seems to be a bit-of-a-dick. If they had done due diligence: if they had nominated someone like Gorsuch we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/86 "2018-10-02T02:05:41Z")
Late to the thread, but apparently Donnie Jr. has given this some thought. * * * [Donald Trump Jr. says #MeToo leaves him more worried for his sons than his daughters](http://theweek.com/speedreads/799263/donald-trump-jr-says-metoo-leaves-more-worried-sons-than-daughters) In light of the #MeToo movement, Donald Trump Jr. is worried about his children’s future, but not in the way you might think. While speaking to The Daily Mail, the president’s son said in reference to the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, “I’ve got boys, and I’ve got girls. And when I see what’s going on right now, it’s scary.” When asked if he’s more worried for his sons or his daughters, Trump Jr. said, “I mean, right now, I’d say my sons,” implying he’s more fearful that his sons will be falsely accused of sexual misconduct than that his daughters will be victims of sexual misconduct. … * * * Think about it. He worries that his sons are in greater danger of false rape accusations than his daughters are of actually being raped. I guess this goes double if the sons run for or are appointed to public office. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/87 "2018-10-02T02:13:18Z")
To be fair, I’ve seen nothing in Donald Trump Jr.'s remarks explicitly stating that he thinks that the sexual-misconduct accusations he’s scared his sons will be subjected to will be _false_ accusations. Maybe he’s just saying that, given the way he’s bringing them up, he feels he has good cause to worry that they’ll be the targets of _true_ sexual-misconduct accusations. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/88 "2018-10-02T02:20:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > To be fair, I’ve seen nothing in Donald Trump Jr.'s remarks explicitly stating that he thinks that the sexual-misconduct accusations he’s scared his sons will be subjected to will be _false_ accusations. > > Maybe he’s just saying that, given the way he’s bringing them up, he feels he has good cause to worry that they’ll be the targets of _true_ sexual-misconduct accusations. Good point. I also think there’s an undercurrent of “being accused of rape (whether false or true) would be more damaging to my son who might be accused than to my daughter who actually endured rape.” And to further extrapolate (granted: perhaps going too far), “After all, she’ll get over it, but his career could be destroyed.” I think I better pack it in for the night. My cynicism is getting out of control. Tomorrow is another day. (What will IT bring?) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/89 "2018-10-02T12:47:24Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …is that what she wanted? Really? That’s what she said she wanted, yes. > [@](#): > > Ford didn’t want to come forward. That’s what I said. > [@](#): > > As to why she decided to come forward and stand behind her story? > > [Why Ford says she decided to come forward with her story now](https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-ford-sexual-assault-hearing/h_3c7548bda148a000c2f48b27de117b2c) > > She came forward because the media had her name and it was only a matter of time before her name came out. > > None of this seems unreasonable to me. Does any of it sound unreasonable to you? No, it sounds perfectly reasonable. > [@](#): > > These are extraordinary allegations. Feinstein denies leaking the [letter](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409369-feinstein-hits-back-at-gop-i-didnt-leak-ford-letter). The Intercept denies the letter either came from Feinstein or Feinstein’s [staff](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/intercept-editor-clarifies-feinsteins-staff-didnt-leak). Is the Intercept lying? If you have proof that Feinstein or her staff did as you claim I’d ask that you post that evidence here. It is being investigated, or at least investigation into the leak is being suggested. Somebody leaked it. I don’t think anyone believes it was a Republican who leaked it. Therefore… I doubt very much if anything will come of the investigation. Washington is a city of leaks, and both sides have a vested interest in not looking too closely into when the other side does it, for fear of being found out when they do it. But, to be clear, things happened exactly as you (and I) described. Ford made the accusation anonymously, and didn’t want to come forward, or have the matter pursued any further than an anonymous accusation could take it. It didn’t achieve anything, because anonymous accusations don’t get or deserve much traction. So Feinstein announced the accusation publicly, knowing that her staff, or the staff of the Democratic Representative that originally received the allegation, would or already had leaked the accusation. If you want to believe that Feinstein or the other Democrats were shocked - shocked! - that leaking was going on, feel free, but that sounds to me to be a little on the naïve side. But we agree on the circumstances. Ford made an anonymous accusation, nothing could be made of it, Feinstein did not AFAIK attempt to bring it up with any of the open or closed sessions with Kavanaugh, nothing was sticking and the hearings finished, then Feinstein announced the accusation publicly, the Democrats leaked the accusation, and here we are. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/90 "2018-10-02T12:56:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s what she said she wanted, yes. …cite please. > [@](#): > > That’s what I said. Naaah, you really didn’t. > [@](#): > > It is being investigated, or at least investigation into the leak is being suggested. > > Somebody leaked it. I don’t think anyone believes it was a Republican who leaked it. Therefore… Therefore you have no evidence it was leaked by either Feinstein or by her staff. The Intercept have categorically denied it came from either Feinstein or her staff. What you “believe” isn’t relevant. Its what you have claimed in this thread that is relevant: and what you claimed was: > [@](#): > > So Feinstein, seeing that nothing else was going to work, threw Ford under the bus, violated her wishes by leaking, or allowing to be leaked, Ford’s identity to the press. Are you standing by this claim? > [@](#): > > If you want to believe that Feinstein or the other Democrats were shocked - shocked! - that leaking was going on, feel free, but that sounds to me to be a little on the naïve side. Nope. I want you to either back up your claim or withdraw it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/91 "2018-10-02T12:58:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In fact, it is disproved by, e.g., [the case of Ruben Kihuen (D-NV)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Kihuen#Sexual_misconduct_allegations), who was accused of sexually harassing and touching a female campaign finance director in 2016. AFAIK there was zero documentary evidence presented that actually demonstrated that Kihuen did what he’s accused of, any more than there was in Kavanaugh’s case. But Kihuen’s fellow Democrats believed his accuser and called on him to step down, and he decided not to run for re-election this year. From your cite - > [@](#): > > On December 1, 2017, a 25-year-old woman who served as finance director of Kihuen’s 2016 congressional campaign accused him of sexual harassment and unwanted touching. The woman, who joined Kihuen’s campaign in June 2015 and left in April 2016, alleges that Kihuen’s behavior began in February, that he repeatedly requested that she go on dates or have sexual intercourse with him, and on two occasions forcibly touched her thighs without consent.[1] > > Upon resigning from the campaign in April, the woman reported to a mid-level staffer at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that Kihuen had made her feel “uncomfortable”, without offering any further details. The mid-level staffer proceeded to confer with another mid-level staffer, who in turn called Kihuen’s campaign manager, Dave Chase, and informed him of the woman’s discomfort around Kihuen. Chase then confronted Kihuen, who denied that anything had occurred.[1] > > In addition to the finance director’s conversation with the DCCC operative, she also documented Kihuen’s behavior in a series of March 10, 2016 text messages to a friend, and shared contemporaneous details of her departure with four other individuals at the time.[1] When asked about the accusations, Kihuen said, “I sincerely apologize for anything that I may have said or done that made her feel uncomfortable”.[1] > > On December 13, 2017, a second woman accused Kihuen of sexual misconduct. The woman, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Nevada Independent that he touched her thighs or butt in three separate incidents, and has sent her hundreds of sexually suggestive text messages.[16] As of December 13, Kihuen has yet to deny or confirm the allegation to the Independent.[16] So no, it does not appear that the circumstances were all that similar. Unless you can find hundreds of contemporaneous text messages documenting the accusation against Kavanaugh, the four other people Ford told about it, or some instance that Ford named Kavanaugh earlier than thirty six years after the fact. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/92 "2018-10-02T13:05:44Z")
I’m reminded of the fact that, back when I used to drink heavily, I thought EVERYONE bought a case of beer on their weekly trip to the grocery store, and drank it before the next trip. I imagine a lot of people who cheat on their wives, mistreat women, whatever - feel the same. EVERYONE does it. You know what? MOST people DON’T. Gorsuch has political/social/religious views every bit as reprehensible as Kavanaugh’s (well - absent the Starr/Bush connection), yet he WASN’T a mean drunk who disrespected women. How hard is it to pick an odious candidate who supports your partisan agenda - WITHOUT such obvious baggage? Hell, why not take obvious sexual predation off the table and nominate more women? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/93 "2018-10-02T15:35:02Z")
Sure, it’s crazy to believe that there’s a vast left-wing conspiracy out to get people to make false accuastions against key Republicans. It was also crazy to believe there was a vast right-wing conspiracy “dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park” to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/94 "2018-10-02T15:59:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > …then Feinstein announced the accusation publicly, the Democrats leaked the accusation, and here we are… Once the cat is out of the bag, well, who can “leak” the cat? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/95 "2018-10-02T16:05:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Just something to clarify - if this kind of thing works, and Kavanaugh is not confirmed based on unsubstantiated allegations, it is not just the Democrats who are going to try it again. The Republicans are going to do it just as hard, the next time a liberal is nominated. > > Recognizing that the sides will flip-flop instantly, and that allegations with exactly the same amount of evidence will instantly become not credible when made against a liberal judge - it will still happen. > > The Democrats do not hold the moral high ground here. They have chosen to take the game to the next level. That’s where it’s going to be played. I would like to believe that Republicans are better than this, but I don’t. And all the “no fair - he hit me back” in the world will make any difference. > > “I’ll take my revenge and then we both have to stop” doesn’t work. > > Regards, > Shodan I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that you believe Ford et al., and that you believe that Kavanaugh is unfit for the bench due to their allegations and that the democrats had better make sure their house is in order and vet their candidates and nominees very carefully? If so, I agree. If you are saying that you do not belive Ford et al, then you are saying that you are advocating that your party start making up allegations in order to harm their political opponents. If I were to find out that Ford et al were put up by democrats in a fraudulent effort to discredit republican nominees, I would condemn those actions. Would you do the same if it were your party, as you predict it will? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/96 "2018-10-02T17:02:38Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m not sure what you are saying here. > > Are you saying that you believe Ford et al., and that you believe that Kavanaugh is unfit for the bench due to their allegations and that the democrats had better make sure their house is in order and vet their candidates and nominees very carefully? If so, I agree. > > If you are saying that you do not belive Ford et al, then you are saying that you are advocating that your party start making up allegations in order to harm their political opponents. > > If I were to find out that Ford et al were put up by democrats in a fraudulent effort to discredit republican nominees, I would condemn those actions. Would you do the same if it were your party, as you predict it will? Yeah, this is one of those topics where conservatives clearly aren’t thinking things out very well. If they want to argue that Corey Booker needs to step down because Kavenaugh… have they not followed this to the logical conclusion of what must happen to Trump? I mean, seriously, it takes like a fifth grader to follow this Encyclopedia Brown mystery of where this is all heading. And I’m fine with that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/97 "2018-10-02T17:06:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Investigate Dianne Feinstein to find out who on her staff leaked the document in violation of Dr. Ford’s wishes. In favor of investigating things, now, are we? P.s., your standards for believing “someone on Feinstein’s staff” leaked the letter seem ridiculously lower than your standards for believing any of the accusations against Kavenaugh. Curious. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/98 "2018-10-02T23:31:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It was also crazy to believe there was a vast right-wing conspiracy “dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park” to do the same. How do _you_ think they found Paula Jones? ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/99 "2018-10-02T23:49:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > To be fair, I’ve seen nothing in Donald Trump Jr.'s remarks explicitly stating that he thinks that the sexual-misconduct accusations he’s scared his sons will be subjected to will be _false_ accusations. > > Maybe he’s just saying that, given the way he’s bringing them up, he feels he has good cause to worry that they’ll be the targets of _true_ sexual-misconduct accusations. At least someone in that family can think ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/100 "2018-10-03T04:57:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Unless you can find hundreds of contemporaneous text messages documenting the accusation against Kavanaugh Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAICT the alleged text messages weren’t produced as evidence by the time that Democrats were demanding Kihuen’s ouster, if indeed they have yet been so produced rather than just alleged to exist by the accuser. What you said was _“if and when allegations with the same level of evidence are made against a liberal nominee, the sides will flip-flop instantly”_. And to the best of my knowledge, the accusations against Kihuen that produced the Democratic outcry against him were made with exactly the same “level of evidence” as those against Kavanaugh: namely, the accuser’s claim unsupported by documentary evidence of the alleged actions. And other Democrats did **not** in fact instantly “flip-flop” to Republican-style denial and deflection. You can of course try to wiggle around that by judicious goalpost-shifting after the fact, where you argue that “same level of evidence” must imply the exact same 36-year interval, exact same number of confidential communications prior to the accusation, etc. But it doesn’t really change the fact that your assertion was mostly incorrect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210.md?page=6)