Okay, well, her tweet didn’t say, “every accusation ever is 100% true.” She said how she feels victims should be treated. Which is a good way to treat people. I also would be willing to publicly say that victims deserve to be heard. And then if I were personally ever accused, and it was not true, I would still be…

It doesn’t sound like it has to be inconsistent at all. I also feel that accusers should be treated with a default of care and belief, instead of a default treatment that accusers are liars. And it could still be the case that not all accusations are true, but I still want the default treatment of accusers to be one…

It looks like her stance is that you default to treating accusers as though you believe them. That’s a good default, right? It’s way better than the default of treating all accusers as though they are the ones guilty of a crime.

But didn’t she just say they also deserve to be heard?

She’s talking about the way to treat accusers, not the accused. You can’t legally treat accused as though they are guilty (lock them up), without due process. You CAN treat accusers as though you believe them, straight out of the gate.

Uh, yeah it’s believable that that guy felt entitled to do whatever he wanted, especially decades ago. I’d believe that about many of our former presidents. What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton though?