"IF O. had been *ACCUSED*" ... ----------and what, had been proved guilty? or proved innocent?

How many hypotheticals are we supposed to pile on? Embedded in the premise is that OBAMA is a good/decent human, which I thoroughly believe him to be, AND that the hypothetical accusation would have deprived us of the benefits of his leadership. Which, back at the beginning of our knowing him we would not realize that we would miss somebody of wonderful potential. It's like the going-back-in-time meme to kill HITLER before he could become what he became.

I suppose that premise supposes that OBAMA would have been falsely accused. Because, I submit, that if OBAMA had been guilty of whatever horrible thing, he would *NOT* be the wonderful person and therefore we would not be deprived of benefitting from his later self.

What I sort of was seeing when the whole thing started was that just about everybody, including me, were willing to ditch NORTHAM from the get-go, but when it came to FAIRFAX not so much - when there seems to be just about the same level of credibility or lack thereof in the allegations against both. Once the second case came around, I came to reverse what I thought about NORTHAM and had doubts, mostly because of the wingnut sabotage source, about *both* set of allegations. But what I saw was that some/many here treated the two differently. Once FAIRFAX's accuser went public, her credentials were at least as solid as KAVANAUGH's accuser, yet I was seeing pandering to exonerate FAIRFAX without examination, which crosses my mind as being because of his race.

I fully agree that NORTHAM came off as clueless and as a goofball in his reaction to everything, but his later seeming to be convinced of not being in the picture and having been taken by surprise at first, put me more in doubt. While FAIRFAX's lashing out vs the accuser's being credible at least by credentials lessens my presumption of his innocence.