Believing the Alleged Sexual Assault Victim Unconditionally

This notion that a woman's accusation of rape must be believed because of the trauma and difficulty of coming forward and that therefore they couldn't be wrong is deeply unjust.
Tell me what government agency the Duke Lacrosse Team can go to have their names and lives restored! Their trauma reversed. [1]
A woman who reports a sexual assault should be respected and have the evidence gathered. But that evidence must be objectively evaluated to see if it meets the burden of proof. To say we must believe whatever the woman says even in the face of unsubstantiated allegations is to say justice does not matter.  It's not enough to say I believe her or I believe him.  Your belief must be grounded in and supported by the evidence. Anything less is evil. =======
[1] Mary Katherine Ham, "Fantastic Lies: 10 Appalling Moments from the Duke Lacrosse Case", The Federalist; March 16, 2016; Last accessed 9/28/2018. 

The Not So Fine Stain of Senator Feinstein

Reluctant admission is a concept of logic where in the process of denying one fact in an area, one reluctantly admits to important facts that eventually undermine his support of that area.

For example, take a suspect who denies committing a murder yet his DNA is found at the crime scene. To explain the DNA, the suspect claims that the victim asked him to help move some furniture that day but still insists he didn't commit the murder.  As J. Warner Wallace writes in Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels,

"The suspect now admitted to the fact that he had been in the room where the murder occurred and on the vary day when the victim was killed.  While he still denied the fact that he committed the crime, he reluctantly admitted important facts that would eventually be assembled with other pieces of circumstantial evidence to form the case against him."[1]

Since the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh first broke, the Left has demanded an FBI investigation.  But the Left isn't interested in an investigation.  They don't care about Dr. Ford.  They want Kavanaugh's confirmation delayed or scuttled. And Diane Feinstein reluctantly admitted it.

1. Senator Diane Feinstein received an allegation of sexual assault. 
2. She didn't turn over the information to the FBI which could have investigated it and kept Ford's identity confidential; confidentiality which Feinstein says she was trying to honor.
3. Nor did Feinstein turn the information of an alleged crime over to the authorities who had actual jurisdiction to investigate.
4. She kept it hidden from the Senate Judiciary Committee for at least 6 weeks.
5. She kept it hidden during the entire confirmation process; a process designed to vet that very kind of information.
6. In her public comments during the hearing, she said nothing of the allegation.
7. During her private interviews with Kavanaugh, she said nothing of the allegation.
8. During the September 27th hearing, Feinstein claimed that her staff didn't leak the allegation and Ford's name; that it must have been Ford and her friends:

"Let me be clear: I did not hide Dr. Ford's allegations. I did not leak her story. She asked me to hold it confidential and I kept it confidential as she asked."

That last point is Feinstein's reluctant admission.  If Feinstein truly didn't leak the allegation then she intended to keep it confidential. In other words, according to Feinstein herself, she wasn't going to call for an investigation.

Yet, Feinstein prodded Kavanaugh during the hearing that if he was innocent, why isn't he calling for an FBI investigation.

My question to Feinstein is if the allegation against Kavanaugh was so meritorious, why didn't you turn it over to the authorities? Instead you hid it!

That is, of course, if you really didn't leak the allegation.  If you did leak it then that is even more damning that you used Dr. Ford as a tool for your political agenda.

Either way, Feinstein's and the Democrats calls for an FBI investigation had nothing to do with Truth, with Dr. Ford, or in defending an alleged abuse victim.  

The priority was political expediency.

Anyone who does not condemn Feinstein is condoning the use of Dr. Ford as a tool.

Feinstein and the Democrats are engaged in a vile, despicable act.  

They have left a not-so-Fine Stain on America's soul.

======

[1] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013), p. 195.

[2] Grace Panetta, Sen. Diane Feinstein denies withholding Christine Blasey Ford's allegations against Brett Kavanaugh for political reasons, Business Insider, Sept 28, 2018.