We can’t really know because the accuser has literally spent her career playing political dirty tricks for the Republican Party. And if she really has a concern about abuse of women, why the hell did she found a group for women supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court?
There is also some discussion on Reddit that she actually provided the talking points for the speech Susan Collins gave to justify her vote for Kavanaugh. If that’s true, it’s a huge conflict of interest.
Edit: confirmed here that her dark money political group contributed to the talking points that Susan Collins says she used in her speech justifying her vote for Kavanaugh.
Most important, Susan Collins told me that without that memo, she would not see how to support him,” Higgins said. “And if you look at the speech she gave on the Senate floor, it’s entirely the playing out and architecture of how we said to structure the argument — what to say and how to say it, which is just so gratifying. We’re watching TV, and we’re like, ‘That’s ours! That’s ours!”
Additionally, the NY times did not appear to be able to even verify the accusations. So, why print them if this was not just a political hit job for the headline?
You don’t think it’s at all relevant that the accuser works in politics on the other side, is a hypocrite on matters of abuse, and worked to support Platner’s political opponent?
Knowing that Republican PACs are spending $50 million on the race, I have a really hard time believing it. This is in their book of tricks.
Also, am I going to abandon Platner and let a Senator who enables a literal pedophile in the White House win over these rumors? No.
You asked if it is not true or just an ad hominem. They listed why you might suspect it to not be true, but that we can’t know for sure (just as you can’t disprove a god, because you can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist). You’re then angry at them about that? Fuck right off. You’re a dishonest person engaging in a bad faith discussion. Everything they said is relevant to why you’d question their authenticity.
An ad hominem fallacy would be saying she’s a bad person in a way that does not materially effect the discussion. It is to short circuit it and make it so you don’t have to engage the facts. While this might be an ad hominem, it isn’t fallacious. These are materially relevant. It’s not just saying she’s evil, which she could still be telling the truth regardless. It’s saying she’s previously participated in actions that you’d expect from someone who would make something like this up.
It’s like if someone drinks all the alcohol, then a drunk alcoholic claims it isn’t them. Bringing up the fact that they’re drunk and an alcoholic isn’t fallacious. Sure, it doesn’t prove they drank it, which will probably be impossible, it does provide a reason to be suspicious of them.
So are the accusations false? Or is this just naked ad hominem.
We can’t really know because the accuser has literally spent her career playing political dirty tricks for the Republican Party. And if she really has a concern about abuse of women, why the hell did she found a group for women supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court?
There is also some discussion on Reddit that she actually provided the talking points for the speech Susan Collins gave to justify her vote for Kavanaugh. If that’s true, it’s a huge conflict of interest.
Edit: confirmed here that her dark money political group contributed to the talking points that Susan Collins says she used in her speech justifying her vote for Kavanaugh.
https://crooksandliars.com/2026/06/ny-times-omits-minor-detail-platnet-hit
Additionally, the NY times did not appear to be able to even verify the accusations. So, why print them if this was not just a political hit job for the headline?
Either say you think the accusations are false or don’t, all of these character attacks are just pure ad hominem in the most literal sense
You don’t think it’s at all relevant that the accuser works in politics on the other side, is a hypocrite on matters of abuse, and worked to support Platner’s political opponent?
Knowing that Republican PACs are spending $50 million on the race, I have a really hard time believing it. This is in their book of tricks.
Also, am I going to abandon Platner and let a Senator who enables a literal pedophile in the White House win over these rumors? No.
You asked if it is not true or just an ad hominem. They listed why you might suspect it to not be true, but that we can’t know for sure (just as you can’t disprove a god, because you can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist). You’re then angry at them about that? Fuck right off. You’re a dishonest person engaging in a bad faith discussion. Everything they said is relevant to why you’d question their authenticity.
An ad hominem fallacy would be saying she’s a bad person in a way that does not materially effect the discussion. It is to short circuit it and make it so you don’t have to engage the facts. While this might be an ad hominem, it isn’t fallacious. These are materially relevant. It’s not just saying she’s evil, which she could still be telling the truth regardless. It’s saying she’s previously participated in actions that you’d expect from someone who would make something like this up.
It’s like if someone drinks all the alcohol, then a drunk alcoholic claims it isn’t them. Bringing up the fact that they’re drunk and an alcoholic isn’t fallacious. Sure, it doesn’t prove they drank it, which will probably be impossible, it does provide a reason to be suspicious of them.