"In answering a question on what the public should take away from the report, James replied, "That these 11 women were in a hostile and toxic work environment, and that we should believe women.""
There you have it. The virtue signal. As if it doesn't embed its own repulsive hidden accusation.
Blanket statements of this sort show that the AG thinks that, as a gender, men cannot be trusted. Women should be believed. That attitude does not comport with blind justice. Some women lie. Some men do too. You can't trust the objectivity of a report if the author's attitude betrays pro-female, anti-male prejudice.
I don't know about this case. But an AG should never say that we should believe women, indicating that, in contrast, all men accused by women are guilty. There are many examples of the contrary, which I have posted. The question which always needs to be asked. Do the accusers have a plausible malicious motive, such as vengeance or money?
Due to her professed principle, it sounds like the AG didn't even ask the question. So the presumption of innocence is omitted as a premise. And when making allegations of this sort, it's horribly destructive not to. If you encourage a culture of accusation, you end up with liars and puritans controlling the public discourse.
Dems always do this. They demand unrealistic, angelic behaviour of their leaders, finding fault with any sort of non-woke cultural abnormality, and so they end up with eunuchs in charge. I prefer the Dems when people like Al Franken are allowed in the party. But by all means, reveal and incarcerate serious sexual predators.
| 