
Woman offers WaPo false tale about Roy Moore in effort to discredit the paper - fmihaila
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?tidr=a_breakingnews&hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar
======
danso
A lot of good laughs from this incident. I actually feel a bit sad for the
woman who got hired to play the fake victim. She was recently laid off from
from her mortgage job when she apparently accepted the job with Veritas, but
she needed to start a GoFundMe just to move up there (and she only got 2
donors, one of which was her own daughter)

Veritas tasks her with the main role in busting the Washington Post with an
undercover sting. But it doesn't look like she got any training or preparation
at all. She used her real name when talking to the WaPo, had a phone number
with the wrong area code (given her claimed state of residence), and Veritas
didn't remind her to remove her GoFundMe page, which is how the WaPo
ultimately confirmed that she was a fraud.

I'm definitely not a fan of Veritas or O'Keefe's bullshit, and this woman has
to bear responsibility for her poor choices. But damn, if your mission was
sincerely to expose the truth about the purportedly corrupt media, wouldn't
you put more prep into it? It's not like Veritas is lacking in resources --
their latest 990 says they had an operating surplus of $1.3M and O'Keefe
received $235,471 in salary
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3454912-Project-
Veri...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3454912-Project-
Veritas-2015-Form-990.html)

edit: the 2016 990 was just released today. O'Keefe's salary is $317K and the
org's revenue increased from 3.7M to 4.8M. Not bad at all.

~~~
DonHopkins
[https://web.archive.org/web/20171122195050/https:/www.gofund...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171122195050/https:/www.gofundme.com/JaimeToNewYork)

"I'm moving to New York! I've accepted a job to work in the conservative media
movement to combat the lies and _deceipt_ of the liberal MSM. I'll be using my
skills as a researcher and fact-checker to help our movement."

She was fully aware that her job was to lie and deceive the Washington Post,
yet she claimed she aspired to "combat the lies and _deceipt_ of the liberal
MSM".

She claimed to have "skills as a researcher and fact-checker", yet she was
blindsided and busted by skilled liberal MSM researchers and fact-checkers.

She should learn how to use a _spell-checker_ , too.

I don't feel bad at all for that mendacious hypocrite.

~~~
danso
Yeah, my feelings are more muted than mixed. I'm having a hard time feeling
anger toward her because of how comically and catastrophically she fucked up.
OTOH, she did sign up to fake being a rape victim to try a scheme that if it
had been successful, would have discredited rape victims everywhere. Not going
to spend much time worrying if she ever recovers from her self-made disaster.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I don't think it makes sense to focus so strongly on the woman here. She was
hired by a Republican operative known for deceptive practices who was a man,
who is funded by at least two prominent Republicans who were men (Theil and
Trump), being used to throw chaff against a male republican accused of preying
on vulnerable young women. They needed a woman to play this part and they
found (another) naive and vulnerable woman to take advantage of.

Particularly since this was a two pronged attack on the classic right-wing
totems of a) the lying liberal media and b) lying woman who falsely accuse
prominent men of sexual assault, I'm a bit disturbed at how many headlines
seem to focus on the woman, and not the fascist machine that hired her and
intended to profit from this scheme.

It's a fair bet this will be continually referenced in the right-wing media as
"woman made false accusation about Roy Moore" (since they continued to cite
every other Veritas sting operation even after they'd been debunked) so maybe
we shouldn't help them out, since what they're doing is pretty blatantly evil?

~~~
DonHopkins
Of course they'll omit important details like "woman who Jamie O'Keefe paid to
make false accusation about Roy Moore".

But the fact that they're delusional liars who will always twist and deny the
truth doesn't mean the Washington Post shouldn't report the news.

They are themselves precisely what they claim to be fighting against: lying
partisan media, paying women to make false accusations against Roy Moore.

The most delicious thing about this whole affair is hearing Jamie O'Keefe so
flustered to be confronted on the street that he makes the false equivalence
of accusing the Washington Post reporters of pulling his own "tricks" on him,
as if it was just fine for him to play all those deceptive rat-fucking tricks,
just not OK for him to be on the receiving end of some fact-checking and old
fashioned street pounding question asking journalism. "I think it's really
cute that you guys are borrowing our techniques."

------
gdubs
Really interesting from a journalist standpoint to see how the Post
investigates a story. The original Moore piece was incredibly meticulous in
how it presented the information they had obtained, and was transparent about
the process in a way that lets the reader form an opinion on the truthfulness
of the story. This piece has a similar meticulousness in how it’s laid out.

------
legitster
Wow. Far from discrediting WaPo it actually strengthened the validity of the
accusers.

I wonder if this sort of pen-testing could be done more regularly across the
industry (by non-shady organizations).

~~~
thomasahle
Newspaper editors could arrange for their journalists to be approached with
fake stories once in a while. If the story makes its way close to publishing,
they'll know it's fake and can take it off. That way it stays an internal
pentest. Sounds good to me.

~~~
favorited
Wouldn't be dissimilar from companies hiring "mystery shoppers" to sample-test
customer service.

~~~
sgustard
Or how the TSA has people sneak guns onto planes and fails to catch them 80%
of the time.

~~~
supermdguy
Really?

~~~
ihartley
Possibly worse than that: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/6/tsa-
failed-de...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/6/tsa-failed-
detect-95-percent-prohibited-items-minn/)

------
anderber
Personally, WaPo is one, if not the top paper in the country. Their dedication
to great journalism is why I subscribe. If you're an Amazon Prime member you
get a big discount too.

~~~
noobermin
To be honest, the Amazon Prime thing makes me pause for a moment. What happens
when Amazon is involved in a scandal, what will WaPo do?

~~~
tradersam
I had a large argument about this on r/conspiracy with someone recently.

They were claiming since the CIA uses AWS to the tune of ~$900 million a year,
the CIA has a direct line to WaPo.

Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would
agree this is a non-issue, but it does pose an interesting, all be it slight,
conflict.

~~~
mikeokner
_> Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would
agree this is a non-issue_

Guess I'm irrational then. $900M/yr is an insanely substantial chunk of change
for even the largest companies in the world.

~~~
CalChris
That's $900M/yr of _revenue_. At AWS. And the WashPo is entirely different
company.

Nope.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
They also built them AWS Secret.

~~~
CalChris
Yes, but that's included in that $900M/yr of revenue. It isn't an extra
revenue line.

------
pulisse
The guy behind this stunt, James O'Keefe, got his start with funding from
Peter Thiel: [https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22/conservative-
faceboo...](https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22/conservative-facebook-
investor-funded-anti-acorn-videographer/).

~~~
smcl
It's extremely weird reading his reactions on Twitter - either he's putting a
very brave face on it, or he's completely unfazed by (yet another) awful self-
own.

I never know if James O'keefe and his ilk are _really_ into this cause (not
sure exactly what, something vaguely conservative?) or if they're just
grifters trying to make a buck by whatever means necessary

~~~
charcoal23
It's probably both, but leaning much more towards the grifting side of things.
There's something about conservative politics in the US which encourages
grifters and cons.

When my very Republican stepfather fell into dementia, I helped my mom monitor
his mail so he'd stop spending so much money on things he didn't understand.
It was a deluge of stuff every day. Often from groups I had never heard of who
wanted money to stop Sharia law or stop the "war on Christmas" or whatever the
big conservative cause was that day. And even the mainstream GOP got into the
act. More than once, a FedEx envelope would show up with a plea that
everything was doomed unless a check was overnighted. Once the GOP FedEx
solicitation contained a letter accusing my stepfather of no longer being a
member of the Republican Party, but he could clear up this misunderstanding by
writing a check.

~~~
fleitz
And on the flip side it's Donate or get deported. Scare tactics work, both
sides use it.

~~~
fmihaila
Except the stated policy of this executive _is_ to deport large numbers of
people, whereas there is no danger of Christmas being outlawed, or of Sharia
becoming the law of the land.

~~~
fleitz
That’s funny given that deportations are down 80% since the previous admin,
also far less wall has been built than the previous admin was able to build on
a yearly basis...

Wouldn’t you characterize that as scaremongering given the facts?

~~~
fmihaila
Certainly not. The only things keeping the official policy from progressing
faster are the utter incompetence of the administration and the relative
sanity of the court system. Both can change.

------
minimaxir
This is _not_ a political/off-topic submission. This is a story that would
make an interesting movie. (Although I’m not sure if it would be a drama or
comedy)

~~~
threeseed
How is this not a political and off-topic submission ?

~~~
burkaman
"Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of
some interesting new phenomenon."

This phenomenon is at least new to me. As bonus points, it's a nice example of
an attempt at social "hacking".

~~~
Bartweiss
A major news organization choosing to publish off-the-record comments is
itself a pretty significant event that I'm glad to find out about. It's a sign
of extreme confidence in their story (and a lot of irritation at Project
Veritas), because that's the sort of decision that, if mistaken, can lastingly
cripple a publication.

------
nwhatt
I'm interested to see how this plays out - in some respects it's hard to come
back at Project Veritas, they'll just say - hey nice work Washington Post you
did your job.

~~~
uhhhhhhh
> in some respects it's hard to come back at Project Veritas

outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit news organizations
seems like it can come back on your no matter what happens.

In this case, Veritas has egg on its face, one of its employees is now outed,
and everyone that they "may" have been able to expose that wasn't already on
high alert for these frauds is. They've managed to not only prove WP follows
proper journalist practices, but they've also given warning to those that
don't to be extra careful of them.

WP on the other hand, appears to have done what it usually does, vets
information and publishes what it finds. They come out a huge winner over
doing nothing, which is exactly the opposite of what Veritas was trying to
accomplish.

~~~
oh_sigh
> outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit news
> organizations seems like it can come back on your no matter what happens.

Why? News organizations should never accept fabricated stories. If they do,
then something is wrong with their vetting process, and it means that non
"pen-testing" fake stories can get through as well, where the intent is to
have some effect in the world(say, getting a person out of an election) as
opposed to just making the newspaper blush.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _News organizations should never accept fabricated stories_

This is like running around committing fraud and then claiming "people should
have never participated in my fraud!" No, they shouldn't. But no, you
shouldn't.

------
vkou
>“I’m moving to New York!” the May 29 appeal said. “I’ve accepted a job to
work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and deceipt of the
liberal MSM. I’ll be using my skills as a researcher and fact-checker to help
our movement. I was laid off from my mortgage job a few months ago and came
across the opportunity to change my career path.”

The hypocrisy is... Well, there's a lot of nasty words for it.

~~~
rybosome
This is a telling look at the intense self-righteousness felt by that segment.
They knowingly engage in fraud and deception, believing that it is justified
because their enemies do it more or first or something.

------
thesmallestcat
Providing her real name was quite the blunder. Gave WP what they needed to
make sense of the unraveling story, and permanently attached her identity to
clumsy deceit.

~~~
tomc1985
They believe she attempted to deceive her in bad faith, in order to affect the
campaign of a public official. As they state, (and as US courts will stand
behind) she entered into the agreement in bad faith and was caught, and they
voided said agreement.

~~~
thesmallestcat
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, like I said, Phillips blundered by
giving them her real name. WP is definitely allowed to publish it.

~~~
tomc1985
I think I read OP as defending Ms Philips' mistaken expectations of privacy.
My bad

~~~
thesmallestcat
[I] should be less ambiguous [in my comments] :)

------
d--b
It's incredible how mainstream these kinds of practice have become. We are
more happy that WaPo didn't fall for the sting than angry that there was a
sting in the first place!

I can't believe how much the media landscape changed in the past 2 years...

I feel such powerlessness against it. As long as deep pocketed people are
ready to pay to spread lies, I don't see any way to stop them.

~~~
alfithehermutt
The uva scandal and other hoaxes has made people lose faith in the media.

The lack of faith is also a bipartisan issue. The alt left and alt right are
growing and hate the msm.

~~~
DonHopkins
Except the alt-left doesn't exist except in the alt-right's imagination.

~~~
LeeHwang
Probably meant the hard-left, democrats call the alt-left the hard-left (ex.
clinton, the mainstream media).

Republicans (trump, the republican media) are trying to rebrand the hard left
as the alt-left.

And the hard left most definitely exists.

~~~
DonHopkins
He specifically meant to use the term "alt-left", parroting Trump's and David
Duke's own words, just the way right-wing Republicans love to use the
incorrect term "Democrat Party" on purpose as an insult.

The alt-right pretending the alt-left exists is "thing", a talking point, a
false equivalence, and a mendacious lie.

It's a dog-whistle attempting to normalize the alt-right and Nazis, and accuse
the left of acting as extreme and irrational as alt-right Whit Supremacists
are acting, which is total bullshit.

Being anti-Nazi and anti-racist and anti-misogynist isn't "alt-left", it's
"patriotic" and "democratic" and "American" and "mainstream" and "sane" and
"ethical".

It's not "hard left" to be anti-Nazi. Even hard right Republicans SHOULD be
anti-Nazi too, but apparently now they're not any more. Don't blame it on the
left that the right has gone off the deep end and now consider Nazis "very
fine people". That doesn't make the left "hard".

The "alt-left" didn't invade Nazi Germany on D-Day, the Allied Forces did. And
the Allied Forces never behaved anything like the way the alt-right is
behaving.

[https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt-
left/](https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt-left/)

There is no 'Alt-Left,' no matter what Trump says.

Hours after a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, organized by white
nationalists, turned deadly, President Donald Trump blamed "many sides" for
the violence that transpired. Three days later, at an impromptu press
conference at Trump Tower, the president doubled down on this message,
condemning groups "on both sides" of the fighting. “What about the alt-left
that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?” the president said.

[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141108/no-thing-alt-
left](https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141108/no-thing-alt-left)

There is no such thing as the "alt-left". But in a piece for Vanity Fair,
James Wolcott pretends otherwise:

>Disillusionment with Obama’s presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton, disgust
with “identity politics,” and a craving for a climactic reckoning that will
clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created a kinship between the “alt-
right” and an alt-left. They’re not kissin’ cousins, but they caterwaul some
of the same tunes in different keys.

Wolcott admits the left “can’t match” the alt-right “for strength, malignancy,
or tentacled reach”—then proceeds to make just such an argument. This is bad
writing in service of a bad argument: “People say things I don’t like” is not
the same thing as “people advocate for a white ethnostate.” This is precisely
the false equivalency Wolcott makes by using the phrase “alt-left.” It is a
disingenuous characterization designed to undermine leftist claims.

~~~
LeeHwang
You are arguing something I'm not talking about at all.

This is obviously a heated topic for you, and as a democrat myself I don't
think you are doing us any favors. The hard-left isn't a good thing, they
promote violence to achieve their agendas, and say things like "centrists get
the bullet too". I really despise the normalization of political violence.

You need to take a step back.

~~~
DonHopkins
The "hard left" is a tiny minority that isn't represented and is soundly
rejected by the Democratic party, and it is not running the country like the
alt-right is.

There are no "hard left" senators or representatives or supreme court justices
or attorney generals or campaign chief executives or presidents, but there are
many alt-right ones.

------
bradleyankrom
100% serious question: how long before Project Veritas or others on the far
right start accusing the WaPo of fabricating the bungled sting story in order
to embarrass them?

edit: changed "right" to "far right"

~~~
MBCook
I imagine it’s already happening. See one of my other comments in this story.

------
kstrauser
Takeaway: WaPo vets their sources and stories a lot more than certain
political figures claim they do.

------
oh_sigh
Funny that PV brings their undercover actors right in the front door of their
offices. I'm guessing they aren't going to be doing that from now on, knowing
that at the very least WaPo is watching who enters.

~~~
AceJohnny2
Cold-war era intelligence agents must be shaking their heads in disbelief.

It's not the ones you catch you should be worried about, it's the ones you
don't...

------
Lazare
Ouch, I'm getting third-hand embarrassment just reading about it. What
amateurs!

~~~
dragonwriter
They aren't amateurs, they are literal professionals at this (in that, this is
what the group does, repeatedly, for pay—well, donations from right-wing
interests—over a period of many years.)

~~~
MBCook
I assume they mean amateurs in that they are really really bad at it. This is
not their first attempt to shamelessly blow up on their face.

Yes, this is what they do. But ‘profrssional’ just doesn’t seem like a word
that should apply.

~~~
dragonwriter
Several of the other attempts that have “blown up in their face” have been
propaganda successes that have driven government policy and lasting belief in
the conservative base even after their fraud was revealed.

That is, they've been pretty much complete successes where the actual purpose
for which they are done is concerned.

They are professionals that seem like amateurs if you don't consider their
purpose.

------
rabboRubble
I am a huge news junkie. Probably why I am a Hacker News follower. With the
Trump news cycle at a max burn setting lately, I ran out of mobile browsers to
read WaPo articles for free. While I also have the same issue with the
NYTimes, WaPo's journalism has been at Stand-by-Me-sic-balls level lately.
Thoroughly enjoyable.

Also an Amazon Prime member, so I'm getting my 6 months free trial and a
discounted rate thereafter.

------
foobaw
And they just posted a "rebuttal" video.
[https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/935283210606477312](https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/935283210606477312)

~~~
kbenson
Err, so I see a defense of the news arm and it's impartiality and
acknowledgement that the editorial section has an ax to grind? Is that
supposed to be some big expose? That's the _point_ of the editorial
department, a chance for reporters to give opinions rather than be impartial.

The sad part is that people might assume it actually supports the position
that WaPo can't be trusted. That seems to be the norm these days. Say
something and throw out random video or audio as evidence when it isn't
anything of the sort, since most people won't pay enough attention to really
check and will just assume that if it was presented as evidence, it must be
evidence. :/

------
gech
All conservatives should speak out against Project Veritas and have it shut
down.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Why, because WaPo did what they were supposed to? Good on the Washington Post.
Project Veritas served its function.

~~~
orf
Don't paint this as 'Veritas serving its function', their function is not to
evaluate but to discredit. They take secret recordings, then create videos
using completely out of context clips to push right-wing agendas. Just like
the whole 'nothing-burger' video.

I'm sure if the reporters had responded to this fake woman's story with any
soundbites about how it would effect Moore's election results, regardless of
if they published anything or if they kicked her out the door the next minute
they would put up a video about how "WaPo reporters are desperate to destroy
the honorable Roy Moore!"; just look here is one saying this fake story would
be bad for his campaign!

Disgusting.

~~~
leifaffles
They're activists, but sometimes activists stumble on the truth too.

~~~
orf
Well, if you throw enough crap at the wall...

The question is if the truth they stumble upon outweighs the misinformation
and lies they spread to come across it.

~~~
leifaffles
Okay, but the same can be said for Media Matters, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow,
and so on.

They're all doing shady shit, but sometimes one of them hits on something
useful.

~~~
MBCook
Have any of them broken a _real_ story? Ever?

I’m not talking about some partisan thing, I mean a story that gets picked up
as teal by MSM outlets and a real issue.

I honestly don’t know.

------
beedogs
Shutting "Project Veritas" down seems like the next step in all this. What a
bunch of clowns.

------
wnevets
Why hasn't James O'Keefe been arrested yet? He he been caught committing fraud
multiple times.

~~~
maxerickson
I don't think it is particularly illegal to lie to a reporter.

~~~
kbenson
It may be illegal to trick someone else into publishing slander. WaPo might
feel defrauded, and might have a case for that. IANAL though, so that's pure
speculation on my part.

------
mudil
Washington Post silent on AMAZON warehouse conditions? Of course! 'Journalism'
ends at owner's paycheck... (link: [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-
news/timed-toilet-breaks-imp...](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/timed-
toilet-breaks-impossible-targets-11587888))

------
Grue3
>But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York
offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news
media and left-leaning groups.

So they basically stalked her? Interesting to see how WP treats some (all?)
whistleblowers that come their way.

------
oskarth
Is there a problem? Well played on both sides. WaPo won this round and brags
about it, rightly. It's not too dissimilar from the adversarial justice
system, but in a different domain, to be honest.

~~~
pulisse
_It 's not too dissimilar from the adversarial justice system, but in a
different domain, to be honest._

If this were analogous to a judicial proceeding, it would be one in which one
side submitted fabricated evidence. How is that "well played on both sides"?

------
Overtonwindow
This is unfortunate but I support Veritas. I think, in general, they do good
work in exposing corruption, and bias. Just because WaPo caught them this time
doesn't mean they're wrong, or WaPo is wrong. The past few years have given me
a deep distrust of all media.

~~~
maxerickson
What's your favorite example of their good work?

~~~
Overtonwindow
Acorn.

~~~
mejari
...was proven to be completely innocent of the actions they were accused of.

------
gkya
The cases involving intimate/sexual relations (consensual or not) are really
difficult to address, and the general approach we have as the (at least
nominally) secular and democratic part of the world is just crazy. Probably
most allegations in most cases are true, but as it is now any male is quite
open to the abuse of the general stance of the society and the law. Even being
accused of something can easily ruin one's life, despite the "innocent until
proven guilty" principle. If it's allowed to weaponise slander so easily, it
actually hurts also whom suffer from sexual violence, reducing the credibility
of their claims when they try to come out and pursue justice.

~~~
MBCook
The problem is the bar has been way too high until now. “He’s
important/beloved/whatever, he wouldn’t do that. It’s just your word against
his”.

And a lot of men escaped a LOT of charges because of that.

I think we’re still pretty far from the pendulum going too extreme. We’ll have
to figure out the balance.

But what’s happening right now still seems pretty healthy. The fact that so
many stories can be found so easily and corroborated shows what has been
waiting in the wings.

~~~
gkya
It's not acceptable to punish today's men for what men of past got away with.
That's vendetta, blood feud, primitive.

What I watch happening is lots of decisions happening based on nothing. That
all or most the particular men accused at the moment are actually guilty is of
no interest to me. But the way we decide on anecdotes and stories is. When we
decide before the courts, we commit irreversible damage. If we say once Joe
Person is a molester or a rapist or a paedophile, and then he's proven
innocent, it's basically impossible to find every single person who has read
the wrong accusations and convince them otherwise.

Also, it's not only the bar that is lowering, the definition of what's normal
advances and what's molesting is changing. In not so distant past invasive
behaviour of men were even expected in some circumstances. Good that we do
away with these problematic behaviours and protect people from unwanted
experiences, but that in no way legitimises leaving people defenceless in
front of slander.

~~~
MBCook
Were not punishing today’s men for what yesterday’s men did.

We’re punishing today’s men for what today’s men were still doing. And what
yesterday’s men continued to do into today.

~~~
gkya
The punishment is happening before the punished is deemed guilty.

~~~
MBCook
There is no LEGAL punishment happening. It’s all social.

People can behave how they wish, rightly or wrongly. There isn’t much of a way
of stopping at. You could always try suing for libel/slander but even if you
win everyone’s going to remember the lie.

A big part of the problem is there are so many people with a lot of
credibility making these accusations.

~~~
gkya
First of all I'm not questioning the present accusations. I don't even follow
them that closely, to be honest.

And, I was talking about the social punishment anyways. People can behave how
they wish, but that does not mean they should be pushed in a wrong direction
by the media and by the accusations before there's a court decision or very
strong evidence (like a cam recording, a photo, etc.).

It seems to me that you're trying to not understand me, so, my participation
in this thread ends here.

~~~
MBCook
I understand what you’re saying. I simply don’t see another way.

I get you’re concerned that if someone were to be given an accusation they
could lose their career and then we could find out later that it was all fake.
Nothing legal went down, society simply decided to shun them.

Outside of making it illegal to publish any kind of accusation in less it has
been proven in a court of law… I don’t see how we could avoid people deciding
to shun the accused.

And maybe that’s fair given the number of women who have had their career is
ruined because they chose not to work day in and day out with someone who
harassed and/or raped them. Who had to leave the workforce instead, or take
another job and start at the bottom of the ladder again.

There’s no good solutions to ANY of this. It’s a giant mess. We’ll just have
to see how it society sorts it out.

In the end the long victimized group has gotten some temporary power. That
seems like a step forward even if it raises the possibility of false
accusations a small amount.

