Devin LaSalle

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2998744

Swissy said something great for the Maxwell post the other day:

By INVESTIGATING a report of a crime, we ARE believing the accuser, enough to get those wheels rolling...

(To imagine that Maxwell is in any meaningful sense a modern American attorney is ludicrous.)

Cathy Young tweetlinked this from Volokh. Favorite passage, as he speculates on RH's culpability for the Dunham book:

This is going to dog Identifiable Conservative Barry for years to come — for the simple reason that Dunham and Random House published a factual item (the statement that the alleged rapist was named Barry) that

1. they knew
2. was false
3. without stating, clearly and immediately (again, as they had done with regard to another man), that the name was made up.

I love when law is simple enough for short words to be laid out in plain fashion like that.

And numerous reputable science writers -- males, too, like David Dobbs -- piled right on.

Sometimes, it is useful to run a feminist flag up the flag pole and see who salutes. It is a way for men to show their bona fides for the Cause.

And the Cause always trumps everything else.

Crid: using Barry as a fake name for a rapist is raaaaaaaaacist and reflects poorly on the current President.

After some thought, I'll call out Dunham and say there is no way a progressive woman will consent to having sex with a Republican (or a conservative or libertarian for that matter) since they aren't ideologically pure.

They only reason for a progressive to have sex with someone who isn't ideologically pure is out of simple rebellion. Or to hate fuck someone they actually dislike.

I'm also skeptical that an actual conservative would attend Oberlin.

I'm also skeptical that an actual conservative would attend Oberlin.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at December 9, 2014 7:11 AM

You might if you were at the Conservatory. I know some die hard republicans who have sent their sons and daughters there.

However if you were, you probably would not have time for much of a social life.

Ainjus' me.

I have no idea what most of the comments above are trying to say, but I'll add this to Amy's comment:

It's not just "science writers" (of either gender) who need to investigate and verify. It's journalists/reporters, period. And when the stakes are as grave as death, violent crime, or matters of character, it's incumbent on that reporter to be dead cert on the facts.

I enjoy the commenters over at nikitab.
Especially the one ('Gross') who maintains that it is sexual harassment simply because the woman thinks so.
Wow.

You might if you were at the Conservatory. I know some die hard republicans who have sent their sons and daughters there.

That was one exception I could come up with. I think in the days to come, that will be considered...more carefully by the scions of such families.

It's not just "science writers" (of either gender) who need to investigate and verify. It's journalists/reporters, period.

Your points are valid. Also irrelevant to the notion of ideological purity.Much like Prof. Gruber, RS believes us yokels to be idiots, and we have to be lead, by hook or by crook, to correct think. It isn't about the story, it's about the end result.

But they got caught with their hands in a cookie jar, so...

Your points are valid. Also irrelevant to the notion of ideological purity.Much like Prof. Gruber, RS believes us yokels to be idiots, and we have to be lead, by hook or by crook, to correct think. It isn't about the story, it's about the end result.

I have no idea what Rolling Stone editors think, nor do I care. I only know they didn't do their job with this story.

Furthermore, I have no idea whether "Jackie" was raped; I only know it was unproven based on the facts presented in this story.

From The Washington Post:

At the request of Jackie, the magazine refrained from contacting the accused in this incident. “Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story,” reads the note, “we decided to honor her request not to contact the man who she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men who she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”

That's truly shocking.

What is really pathetic is there are people still pushing the RS narrative. I was listening to NPR today and their guest said she completely believed the story because women are in danger when there are male dominated spaces. I.e. if women aren't constantly watching men then the men will kill/rape/steal/... There was a very Dan Rather feel with the documents were false but the story is true excuse. The bigotry was so offensive I had to change the station.

Brava!! I absolutely agree. Bora's side of the story needs to be told, and the person(s) who orchestrated the "harassment" smear campaign attacking him should be exposed.