Misleading comment.

I never said she denied the possibility of false claims. She clearly, plainly, unambiguously said that in a case of alleged rape, the default position--THE DEFAULT POSITION--should be to believe one side (who happens to be the accuser), "until they are disbelieved based on evidence." The competing "evidence" will almost always be proffered by the accused, by the way, or by someone supporting the accused's position. And she didn't say just any evidence will do--the evidence has to be sufficient so that we DISBELIEVE her story. This flips everything we were taught in law school about criminal procedure on its head, it reverses the burden of proof.

This silly position, and your silly defense of it, is consistent with her prior pronouncements.At an event in Iowa on September 14, 2015, Hillary Clinton declared, “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault . . . You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.” She also posted the following comment on Twitter: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

The folks looking to sugarcoat Hillary's words are the ones who need to be careful. This is a woman running for the highest office in the United States and, if she's elected, she will set the agenda for the Dept. of Education's policies. We ignore her clear and unambiguous words at our peril. She is telling us she believes the accuser should be believed until there is evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary will not be furnished by the accuser--that will be up to the accused. If she's elected, we should assume that this philosophy will find its way into the policies of the Dept. of Education (and even the Dept. of Justice). That philosophy will also help guide her selection of Supreme Court justices (most pundits think the next president will have several selections). It will also guide her legislative efforts.