Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Bi_3 wrote:Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part.

if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself

bune wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Aren't you, like, kind of presupposing bad intentions? This "let's make up a narrative in our head" does work both ways, you know.

Bi_3 wrote:

bune wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Aren't you, like, kind of presupposing bad intentions? This "let's make up a narrative in our head" does work both ways, you know.

I am. But I would point to the long history of Senators being politicians as the reason why.

Bi_3 wrote:

bune wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Aren't you, like, kind of presupposing bad intentions? This "let's make up a narrative in our head" does work both ways, you know.

I am. But I would point to the long history of Senators being politicians as the reason why.

simple schoolboy wrote:Wait, Feinstein gets the benefit of the doubt? Why tho?

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Wait, Feinstein gets the benefit of the doubt? Why tho?

Welcome to the debate of the last two pages!

tragabigzanda wrote:My point was that if the goal was to end his confirmation, a high school rape accusation is a useless way to go about it.

tragabigzanda wrote:My point was that if the goal was to end his confirmation, a high school rape accusation is a useless way to go about it.

Editor’s note: On September 9, Think Progress published an article by Ian Millhiser that made text out of the subtext of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, describing how the Supreme Court nominee, in a fairly straightforward legal analysis, had revealed his belief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That legal analysis, the article noted, matched comments Kavanaugh had made in a speech in 2017. “Kavanaugh’s 2017 speech, when laid alongside a statement he made during his confirmation hearing, eliminates any doubt that he opposes Roe,” Millhiser wrote. Facebook, meanwhile, had empowered the right-wing outlet the Weekly Standard to “fact check” articles. The Weekly Standard, invested in Kavanaugh’s confirmation, deemed the Think Progress article “false.” The story was effectively nuked from Facebook, with other outlets threatened with traffic and monetary consequences if they shared it. The story is republished below, with permission from Think Progress, though not from Facebook or the Weekly Standard.

the consequences could be quite severe for left-leaning outlets generally—or potentially for any other outlet which publishes a news article that The Weekly Standard disagrees with.