Pretty dumb.
It's absolutely not.
If someone has a past history of behaviour, say, sexually assaulting women. Then 20 years later they are accused of it again and have photos and reports of acting a fool what would be the most probabilistic assumption. I see you don't understand bayesian inference.
You think the atlantic is just making up things? that they didn't get information indicating that he was a drunk?
More than 2 dozen current and former fbi workers are said to have witnessed his behaviour. Completely normal for a top official to get caught chugging beers with a hockey team like a frat boy and have two former arrests related to the claimed behaviour.
Just like there is no evidence trump committed a crime in the files, despite a direct accusation that they hid for as long as they could.
Why do you support awful people? because they align with your political side?