Good riddance to men who sexually assault women.

[-misanthroptimist]

18. You're talking about a specific case

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2026, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I am talking in general when I say that accusations require verifiable evidence.

Now, read this next part with the understanding that I in no way, shape, or form believe what I'm writing happened. I'm merely pointing out possibilities.

To answer your questions:

1. She could conceivably have lied because she was angry at Platner for some reason.

2. She could be not lying but misconstruing what happened for some reason or other. Maybe she exaggerated, maybe she was under the influence, maybe she conflated a dream with reality. Who knows?

Again, I do not believe either of those things. But both are possible based on what we know at present.

In general, I am not prepared to convict a man until there is sufficient evidence. If the accusation becomes the conviction none of us are safe.

In this case, I gotta wonder why a guy who has raped someone would run for public office? He's gotta know that it's going to come out. (Yes, there are possible explanations for that, too. But it's one of those things that baffle me.)