Do we understand yet why it's hard for assault victims to go public?

Thing1 said:
LOL

You don't believe any of them, but believe every one of Clinton's accusers.

Well done.
Click to expand...

Where's the "blue dress" from any of Trump's accusers; plus there are and were corroborating comments from State Troopers and the SS, in your hero's case, at that time.

You are so desperately trying to make your OP only about Trump, that it's making you look foolish; but please, continue. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Where's the "blue dress" from any of Trump's accusers; plus there are and were corroborating comments from State Troopers and the SS, in your hero's case, at that time.

You are so desperately trying to make your OP only about Trump, that it's making you look foolish; but please, continue. :good4u:
Click to expand...

Was Monica a "Clinton accuser?"

Desperation is a sad thing to watch. You have an immense double-standard. You always have. Partisan to the extreme.

Really, you're exactly like desh.
 
Thing1 said:
Was Monica a "Clinton accuser?"

Desperation is a sad thing to watch. You have an immense double-standard. You always have. Partisan to the extreme.

Really, you're exactly like desh.
Click to expand...

So the "blue dress" was only pertinent, if used by the accuser and carried no weight for anyone else's accusations.

But then, this really boils down to what the definition of "is" is; huh. :dunno:
 
Thing1 said:
Was Monica a "Clinton accuser?"

Desperation is a sad thing to watch. You have an immense double-standard. You always have. Partisan to the extreme.

Really, you're exactly like desh.
Click to expand...

fuck you thing



you prefer trickle down
 
It's reprehensible for a candidate to threaten from the stump. What a classless jerk. How can someone want this guy to handle diplomacy for their country?

Vote for Gary if you can't take Hilary.
Gary can't possibly be as bad as Trump would be. He might legalize weed and maybe muzzle the DEA and hopefully do something about cops killing unarmed people. Can't we all just get a bong?
 
tsuke said:
well yeah. They waited till the statue of limitations were up. Seriously though it is just logical for you to think that if a billionaire did that to you and you had 10 corroborating witnesses you would file a lawsuit. Tort cases have gotten settlement on far far far less evidence. You wouldnt have had to pay a dime in legal fees too as lawyers would offer their services to you for a cut of the loot. I understand its not a tort case but it would have gotten a settlement nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The statute of limitations on sexual harassment is very short, less than a year. But for sexual assault in NYC, there is no statute. If you were an average person trying to sue a self-described billionaire, he could afford to keep the case going in perpetuity but you couldn't. Not to mention the self-described billionaire could destroy your character and reputation. Even the wives of the self-described billionaire are afraid to talk about him publicly.
 
Thing1 said:
What they're saying is what Trump said he did to women, on tape.

I don't find it difficult to believe them, at all. Most of the stories are what Trump admitted to, exactly.

How many times have we seen it where one accuser comes out, and it gives many more the courage to do so?
Click to expand...

^ Most of the time, if not all.
 
Thing1 said:
Was Monica a "Clinton accuser?"

Desperation is a sad thing to watch. You have an immense double-standard. You always have. Partisan to the extreme.

Really, you're exactly like desh.
Click to expand...

His reliance on the "state troopers" makes me laugh. They were crooked as a dog's hind leg.

In his 2002 book, Blinded by the Right, Brock claimed that in order to maintain journalistic integrity, he agreed to write the Troopergate article only if the four troopers whom he interviewed were not paid. In 1998, a conservative fundraiser had admitted that he had paid each of the troopers $6,700 after the articles were published. The payments were made without Brock's knowledge...

Following Brock's article, in 1994 four troopers conducted interviews with various allegations about Clinton and subsequently the New York Daily News stated that "one of the troopers is an accused wife beater, another was caught sleeping on the job, a third pleaded guilty to starting a barroom brawl and a fourth allegedly slept with a fellow trooper's wife."[SUP][11][/SUP]

Then in 1994 and 1995, Jerry Falwell paid $200,000 to Citizens for Honest Government, who in turn paid two Arkansas state troopers who had made allegations supporting a conspiracy about Vincent Foster in the Clinton Chronicles video.[SUP][12][/SUP] The two troopers, Roger Perry and Larry Patterson, also were paid after making their allegations in the Jones-Clinton trial.[SUP][12][/SUP]

Trooper Patterson, whose name would always be linked with the allegations, retired from the state force in 1999.[SUP][13][/SUP] In 2000 he was named the police chief of Quitman, Arkansas.[SUP][13][/SUP] In 2005, Patterson was convicted of making false statements to the FBI about an unrelated incident.[SUP][14][/SUP]
 
Thing1 said:
Yup.

Makes it even more mystifying that it's the righties who hate Clinton who are doing the vilifying now, and making it sound like it's easy for women to come out about this stuff and "why did they wait?"
Click to expand...

And just as mystifying that it's the lefties who hate Trump that think it was ok to vilify those making serious allegations against Bill then....saying why did they wait....

But at least they didn't wait thirty years when its literally impossible to defend yourself against the accusations, especially when the media presents those charges as if they are true.....that proof isn't necessary...

how would YOU defend yourself if someone came out now and accused you of improper conduct that supposedly happened 30 years ago....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top