Fast forward about four years when James was once again a free agent. After four seasons in Miami where he was part of two NBA championship teams, James looked to return to Cleveland in an attempt to bring a title to that city. Not-so-coincidentally, the link to Gilbert's letter from four years earlier was no longer available on the Cavs web site. The point I'm making here is the letter was initially written to pander to Cavaliers fans who felt spurned by James' departure. However, said letter obviously became obsolete given the majority of the Cavaliers' faithful was willing to "forgive and forget" upon James being open to returning to Cleveland. It's also safe to say it would have reflected poorly on Gilbert and the Cavs organization had the letter remained accessible on the official team web site.
So why am I conjuring up that incident? I couldn't help but think it's analogous to the campaign of a certain Democrat presidential candidate removing a key excerpt from their web site.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign quietly removed her quote about how all sexual-assault survivors “have the right to be believed” from the top of one of her website pages — and I can’t say I’m surprised.
Remember, throughout the fall of 2015, Hillary Clinton was clearly trying to make the “right to be believed” part of her campaign platform. She used the phrase on Twitter (several times) and during a speech at Northern Iowa University. In fact, according to BuzzFeed, archives of her campaign website dated September 14, 2015 show that the following quote from that speech had been proudly displayed at the top of the page:
“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”
Then, by February, the clause “you have the right to be believed” had been removed . . . coincidentally (or not-so-coincidentally - ed.), right after sexual-assault allegations against her husband began to resurface, and people began to question how she could possibly believe the statement, given the way she’s dealt with these kinds of situations in her own life.
Mrs. Clinton's declaration was meant to be red meat for feminists, a way to lock in an already solid leftist voter base. But suddenly the right of accusers to be "heard" and "believed" has become obsolete since, according to Mrs. Clinton herself, a) it clearly isn't applicable in all cases and b) reflects poorly on her personally.
So how did Hillary Clinton handle it? The way she always does: Delete and deflect. And how did it work out? The way it always does: With her getting away with it.
It's almost as if Mrs. Clinton is dismissing this nearly 40-year long allegation, so what difference, at this point, does it make?