On unverifiable sexual allegations about political figures

On unverifiable sexual allegations about political figures, by Neo Neocon.

It has become extremely common for people running for election (or newly-appointed to a political post) to be accused at the eleventh hour of sexual offenses. … The time of the alleged offense is almost always many years ago, and sometime many many many years ago. The accusations vary from sexual jokes in the workplace to unwanted touching, mistresses, and sexual kinkiness, all the way to more serious crimes such as assault and rape. …

So by now the tactic is not only not unusual; we’ve actually grown accustomed to it …

Ordinarily there’s no evidence whatsoever except the accuser’s words. Usually the closest we come to getting evidence is the unsealed divorce record (which usually merely contains the allegations of the accuser) or a settlement by a business (which is not an admission of guilt or even of a good case). But it’s not at all unusual to have no evidence at all, except that of proximity and opportunity (and sometimes not even that). …

The accuser is generally someone we’ve never heard of before. How can people decide if that person can be trusted to tell the truth? … In a trial we can actually see the witness … and evaluate his or her demeanor for ourselves. … But there’s nothing like that sort of protection for the accused in the current flurry of accusations. People are free to say what they want about a public figure because it is almost impossible for that figure to win a defamation suit.

The MSM prints the stories it wants to print — which often means accusations against Republican candidates, because those stories serve the political leanings of the MSM. The accusers say what they want to say, and although they may be subject to questioning or ridicule or scathing blog posts, they will never be subject to cross-examination because one of the hallmarks of such accusations is that charges are almost never filed against the accused, because the cases are so weak legally.  …

At least, if you’re a Republican. Bill Clinton had to be “caught” with the DNA evidence on the famous blue dress before the media was willing to concede that there had been some sexual acts between Clinton and the youngish (but not teenaged) Lewinsky. And it was up to the National Enquirer to out John Edwards for his affair; the MSM wouldn’t touch the story.

Not only is the MSM far more eager to spread the word about supposedly erring Republicans, but it is aided in this endeavor by the fact that the public judges Republicans more harshly in the sexual sphere. “They’re hypocrites!” is the refrain, if suspect behavior is alleged. Unlike Democrats, Republicans often profess to care a great deal about things such as fidelity.