It is going to be really, really important that people trace the origin of stories and information this election season. There are going to be a bunch of entities spreading lies and misinformation, not to mention people who mis cite or provide factual stories out of context. It's going to be exhausting to keep up with all of this, to track down and provide citations for every piece of news or allegation. But we need to do this, because there are people with agendas, and people trying to undermine our election, not to mention foreign institutions that want us to react to things without thinking.
I know I've been caught out by plausible-sounding stories that are exaggerations, out of context, or out and out fake news.
It's complicated, because one's values, political orientation, and reactions to politicians are about the feels too, and people's life experiences will certainly drive how they respond to something emotionally, and of course which pieces of factual information are more relevant to them. This is legitimate too. But I think it is important to understand the different nature of the sexual assault allegations against Biden vs Trump so we don't paint false equivalencies. I believe every person who accuses another of a crime should be taken seriously and evidence should be weighed carefully. This doesn't mean every allegation is true.
A think that's bothered me about this allegation all along is the history of the accuser, her personal record of irresponsibility and dishonesty, not related to her past sex life but across a broad swathe of her life. I also am not comfortable with defenses that rely on dissecting the character of an accuser, however (because even if they are true, well, irresponsible and dishonest people can be assaulted too). But what do you have when there are no witnesses or other allegations coming forward? I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but what would I do if (say) a former student came forward and claimed I'd sexually assaulted them years ago? How could I prove I didn't do it without examining the alleged victim's past history of credibility?
But this gets at the whole reason why (in courts of law) defenders try to establish reasonable doubt by performing character assassination on the victim, which is despicable. Is the court of public opinion different? Should one allegation be enough to render someone unfit for office, even if no evidence supports it? What constitutes compelling evidence anyway? Corroborations and records confirming the two people were alone together in a time and place? Witnesses who remember the victim talking about things happening at the time? Witnesses who saw something odd happening in the hallway but dismissed it at the time? Records of complaints made at the time? All of these can be picked apart, even when they are present, and there are reasons they might not be present, even when an assault was real.
I have to say I don't think the evidence against Biden has been compelling, and I very much question his accuser's motivations and reliability. Though her speaking at the Republican National Convention could be a result of legitimate anger and feeling the other party has abandoned her. At least one can make that case. I look long and hard at myself and have to consider whether or not I'd be convinced by this evidence if Biden were a GOP candidate or appointee. That's a tough one, because we're all inclined to be biased against those we already dislike for other reasons. I don't dislike Biden, even though I would have much preferred different democratic candidates. To someone who does dislike him, the evidence may be more damning.