The Romulan Republic wrote:I'm loath to dismiss allegations of sexual assault when their are multiple accusers, and it seems hypocritical coming from many on the Left, including Hillary Clinton, but as I said before, its true that Bill Clinton hasn't been charged, much less convicted. And unlike Trump, he hasn't confessed and bragged about it on tape.
I don't know about the laughing thing, but I agree that it is wrong to condemn a defence attorney for doing their job and providing the accused with the defence to which the Constitution entitles them. But then, since when did the Trumper crowd respect the Constitution?
Well they are not all accusing him of rape. One is rape, one is a former mistress, two others if I recall some form of sexual harassment or another. The other is the women who's alleged rapist Hillary defended back in the 70s.
A former mistress is a former mistress. Shock and Horror. Bill Cheats, news at 11.
I will buy the sexual harassment because Bill is Bill.
And the rape accusation is a case from the 70s with no timeline, and descriptions of injuries that cannot even be corroborated by her then-husband, who certainly would have noticed. If there was any evidence--or a chance of there being evidence--I would be sitting here saying "Well, a pity there is a statute of limitations". But there isn't. Not even internal consistency from the alleged victim. After 20, let alone 40 years, it becomes possible to say whatever you want. That is why we have statutes of limitations in the first place.
There is a cost-benefit ratio with rape cases that influences whether someone will report. In most cases, the cost in terms of social stigma, time, psych trauma etc outweighs the benefit (which can only be expressed in subjective terms, really) substantially, so false reports are unlikely. 2-8% maximum from empirical data. In these cases, the accusation itself is enough to make me think "Ok. He either did it, or the victim is telling the truth but could be mistaken about perp ID given the right conditions". Not enough for me to convict if I were on a jury, but enough that I wont let the guy near my sister or anyone else I care about who IDs as a woman.
However, with someone like Bill Clinton, suddenly people have something to gain through false accusations that can make the time, stigma etc worth it. So the rate goes up. And most rapists are repeat offenders, even when they are never caught (undetected rapists on college campuses for instance on average rape 4-5 women while in university, we know this because they admit it when asked by researchers using words other than rape), so if this was something Bill did, when the first accusation cropped up in the 1990s, if it were true, one would expect others to come forward as well. Like with the Bill Cosby case once the accusations were well-publicized, it created something of an avalanche. Once the first person comes forward, other victims feel much safer coming forward against a powerful person. No dice there with Bill Clinton thus far.
In the end, in the absence confirmation, the likelihoods have to be assessed through a sort of back of the napkin bayesian analysis. Our priors indicate (or at least mine, because I am pretty sure most people dont think the way I do in terms of probabilities) that there is a high probability of a false accusation with Bill Clinton. I am not so wed to the idea that I will reject evidence or try to excuse his behavior if he did rape someone... but so far the weight of evidence is, by my estimation, in the metaphorical negative column. Now, if the avalanche of accusations start up with the publicity of this particular case... I will be forced to re-evaluate.
