But they did come forward – that’s exactly the point.
Douglas Milnes

Actually it is a very reasonable question to ask why somebody would deliberately put themselves forward into the maximum spotlight that media can provide, when the common excuse for not coming forward — one which you yourself have stated — is because of media attention.

This is a tough topic for me. I have been falsely accused, not of rape itself but of things involving my alleged actions or even attitudes, toward a woman. I was once arrested for assault, after being assaulted by a woman, and years before that had endured months of grilling and leading questions by note-taking social workers, who tried to entrap me into making quotable statements to portray me as “concerning” (their word in testimony, repeated again and again) in terms of my fitness as a parent.

So yeah, here I am, “coming forward”. And I have enough experience to know full well, just how many people there are who would read the above paragraph, and think “well, that settles it: he was accused by women, what else do we need to know?” Et cetera.

Believe the victim. We hear it all the time. A lady running for President, famously quoted as saying survivors of sexual assault have a right to be believed. Believing the reporting victim, beginning with that first encounter with police and those initial inquiries by a prosecutor, her right to have evidence preserved, examined and fully utilized in a criminal complaint: these are all frontline demands of women’s organizations and rape-survivor advocates, and have been for a long, long time.

My own admitted biases on these questions originated from my being a man who has indeed endured being falsely accused, a man who once had to go back to work the next day, on a bail bond, among nearly all women and girls (coworkers and shoppers both, in a small-town grocery) after being publicly arrested and charged with assault.

So no, I wasn’t exactly prepared to embrace “believe the victim” as an overarching doctrine, when I began years later to research how what had happened to me, had been able to happen at all.

My own findings, have largely revealed a massive grants economy in the domestic violence non-profits field, wherein local groups are continually incentivized not only to believe any and all alleging (female) victims, but to pursue multiple avenues aggressively and immediately, and publicly funded, in the standing presumption that accusation by a woman equals guilt in a man.

The origination and renewal of funding for these groups relies heavily on caseload numbers, where “survivors” are evaluated bureaucratically as units of service. The evidence I have uncovered, of doctored numbers and egregious misappropriations of resources, in order to fabricate more “survivors” on a performance report, has been staggering.

Biased? Hell yes, I was.

Then, quite by chance, I somehow began a conversation via private message with a rape survivor, a young lady with a law degree and now executive director of a rape survivors’ organization. And what she has to say for herself in terms of law and doctrine, turned everything I thought I thought, on its head.

She believes in the rule of law, in the same presumption of innocence that both saved me, as an innocent man, and sprung her attacker as a guilty one. She believes as I do, in the upholding of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th and 14th Amendments to the US constitution, wherein the rights of persons are codified and enshrined, including accused ones.

She was not believed. She did “come forward”, the same day she was attacked in her own home as a teenager, by a serial rapist who went on to rape other girls after he was pleaded out by the local DA.

And she has not stopped, “coming forward.” The last ten years of her life, her entire pursuit of undergrad and graduate degrees to end up with an education in law, her advocacy and non-profits work, her media appearances, her social-media persona and profile, ALL have been an act of sustained coming forward, since the day her life was sabotaged by a man officials were unwilling to stop from going on and making more victims of more young girls.

And she believes, in the rule of law. She believes, that to believe a victim means: not to suppress or destroy or backlog or warehouse or ignore evidence, but to investigate it. Her mantra is not “believe the victim” but “arrest, investigate and prosecute.” She is a rape survivor, telling public officials, no more than to do their god-damn job.

It was this lady too, who pointed me to a massive study from University of Iowa Law, which shows in dense detail, how local police, courts and prosecutors are incentivized by the federal government, to actually suppress official performance data, on rape and murder statistics, in order to augment a public perception that these officials and agencies are being “tough on crime.”

After my reading this paper, and continuing the discussion with my new contact, I told her basically, this is astonishing: ALL my findings on the domestic-violence side of the funding equation, show the opposite, that non-profits and now college campuses are being driven by threats of funding cuts, to portray more domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, than ever.

And by and large, these twin, and contradictory, funding streams across the United States, each have their origins in the United States Department of Justice, the parent department of the FBI, the US Attorney General and US Attorneys’ offices, and the Office on Violence Against Women. The same DOJ, that is now scrambling desperately to find some way to keep its political ally and feminist darling Hillary Clinton’s candidacy afloat.

Not only has DOJ been funding, for decades, both sides in what amounts to an internal civil war among officialdom and the non-profit sector over violent crime, it is now trying to protect a woman’s run for the highest office in the land, a woman who has claimed all along that she is herself, an advocate for women and girls, and one who now claims publicly to believe, in believing the victim.

Let’s just see about that. If anyone believes that Hillary Clinton is any protector of women or adherent to believe-the-victim as a policy doctrine, just go ahead and read this, ALL THE WAY THROUGH:

This source is a British venue, not a US one. It is a comprehensive reportage on multiple facets of a criminal case, and not one of the dozens of throwaway “fact-check” pieces hastily assembled this year to protect the Clinton candidacy, from a 54-year-old woman who has not forgotten what was done to her, when she was twelve years old, by one Hillary Rodham, counsel for the defense of a rapist, in 1975.