We’ve seen plenty of crazy from ABC News chief political analyst Matthew Dowd, but this may very well take the cake:
Enough with the “he said, she said” storyline. If this is he said, she said, then let’s believe the she in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the he in these scenarios. Enough is enough.
— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) September 17, 2018
What?
Chief Political Analyst, ABC.
That's some *analysis* https://t.co/cMwJbzlLRW
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) September 17, 2018
Seriously, WTF.
Dear lord:
We thank you today for making sure that @matthewjdowd wasn’t around in 1787, millions of innocent men would have been jailed had he been allowed to participate in the process of crafting our constitution. https://t.co/S1ZqMgEGFN
— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) September 17, 2018
Huh? You have no idea what you are talking about. What I said is truth.
— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) September 17, 2018
What you said would get millions of innocent people jailed on false charges.
What you said would destroy every right that every citizen in this country has for due process.
What you said goes against the constitution and basic decency and common sense.
What you said is insane. https://t.co/YXNNsKZ1kr
— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) September 17, 2018
That’s putting it mildly.
This is a frightening statement. https://t.co/cQaPCAhpDe
— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) September 17, 2018
Indeed.
Who cares what the actual truth is? https://t.co/vsFCs44u7n
— el jefe (@ThatElJefe) September 17, 2018
Where in Dowd admits he doesn't give a damn about due process. https://t.co/ALM8I2Q1aL
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) September 17, 2018
So…no due process then?
Good to know.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) September 17, 2018
Dude you are out of your ever loving mind!
— Koheeba (@Koheeba2) September 17, 2018
You think this makes you sound like a woke feminist, but it really shows how little you think of women to believe they deserve less scrutiny for their accusations than men do.
I believe in equality and innocent until proven guilty.
No one is entitled to immunity from truth. https://t.co/i8DsGbnnpt
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) September 17, 2018
This new standard of yours will last right up until a Democrat is accused. Hard pass. https://t.co/SvC6nVkyUz
— Robert Kroese, corroborated by therapist notes (@robkroese) September 17, 2018
For 250 years we have always striven to believe the *evidence* in these scenarios, and should be doing the same now. There is none here, beyond her own unsworn testimony 30+ years later.
I'm sorry for you that the presumption of innocence doesn't lead to your preferred outcome. https://t.co/CadwVzzg9e
— Justin Walton (@JustinRWalton) September 17, 2018
Just a person's entire character and legacy at stake here but, screw it, let's make him pay for 250 years of someone else's history? Nope. Truth, justice, integrity, process, actually matter.
— Mike Batley (@mbatley1) September 17, 2018
Seriously? Do you really think this is a good standard.
— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) September 17, 2018
(1) There are actually three people involved in this alleged story — Christine Ford, Brett Kavanaugh, & Mark Judge. So, “he said, he said, she said.”
(2) This is a dumb standard for this specific situation, before any of them have testified.
(3) This is a dumb standard generally. https://t.co/eg20wbVKDU— Jeremiah Stephan Dunleavy IV (@JerryDunleavy) September 17, 2018
I hope you’re never picked for a jury.
— Mary Stewart (@MaryStewart01) September 17, 2018
This is a dangerous philosophy that can easily wreck the lives of innocent people. I won’t be a party to that.
— John Hornbuckle (@JohnRHornbuckle) September 17, 2018
The dumbest & most dangerous take… https://t.co/YtFVT7wC5A
— (((Pete Kaliner))) (@PeteKaliner) September 17, 2018
"People used to only believe one side so now we should only believe the other side to balance it out."
If you automatically believe one side over another, you're not correcting historical injustice. You're just replacing it with modern injustice. https://t.co/uF92g5wrbm
— neontaster ??? (@neontaster) September 17, 2018
This isn't about Kavanaugh. Matt is saying that "he said, she said" in general should equal "she is correct." And he's a virtue signaling fool for saying it.
— neontaster ??? (@neontaster) September 17, 2018
This is not a game you want to play, Matthew.
Saving this one to see how many women falsely accuse Matt in the next few days. https://t.co/3O7N1oTxrL
— jon gabriel (@exjon) September 17, 2018
I can't wait for someone to come out and allege something against you so that I can believe her.
— David B (@dablanco79) September 17, 2018
See how this works? Matthew Dowd would do well to keep his horrible ideas to himself.
We know we’ve given him this advice before, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in, so we’ll try again:
***
Update:
We should also point out that Dowd called Clarence Thomas a sexual predator today:
It was despicable and outrageous what happened to Anita Hill more than 25 years ago, and a sexual predator was given a lifetime seat on the SC. Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself in 2018.
— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) September 17, 2018
He really couldn’t give a sh*t about due process.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member