XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans   
   From: governor.swill@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:06:25 -0500, "Scout"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   >news:1gop0dhgf4t76l6ko9lfc9fmc0r3hh9r5t@4ax.com...   
   >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:41:23 -0500, "Scout"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>"Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:981l0d9gsl1trd5og9ijcuo3v7mi9mip2s@4ax.com...   
   >>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:55:15 +0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.   
   >>>> Sherman) wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude   wrote:   
   >>>>>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:26:20 +0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.   
   >>>>>>Sherman) wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>Four women, 26 corroborating witnesses.  No statute   
   >>>>>>>>>of limitation in child molesting.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>If it was important to them, they'd have reported it immediately.   
   >>>>>>>>They   
   >>>>>>>>didn't. They're most likely lying.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>There are four women 26 corroborating witnesses.  In Alabama   
   >>>>>>>they keep this shit quiet for powerful men.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Of COURSE they did. All of them. Four women and 26 witnesses. None of   
   >>>>>>them said anything.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Thirty-eight years ago.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>That's very typical of child molestation cases.  Especially   
   >>>>>in small towns.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Spousal and child abuse, especially sexual abuse, remains very   
   >>>> underreported.  Typically such complaints aren't prosecutable anyway   
   >>>> if there's no physical evidence.  Even then, it's his word against   
   >>>> hers.  Most women don't want to go through the ordeal necessary to   
   >>>> prosecute.   
   >>>   
   >>>Yet they are willing to make the accusations decades later?   
   >>   
   >> They know there will be no prosecution, no trial to endure and maybe,   
   >> just maybe, they'll come out of it with enough bucks to pay their   
   >> counsel.  But more likely, they see this as a chance to get revenge.   
   >   
   >Or, maybe, the person they are accusing will chose to sue them for slander   
   >and hold them accountable for their allegations?   
   >   
   >Further as a politician who lives by their reputation, I doubt he would even   
   >need to establish harm in order to bring the suit.   
   >   
   >Because if you're going to publically make the allegation....you can be held   
   >legally accountable for it unless you can prove it's true in a court of law.   
   >   
      
   Revenge.  Another characteristic of those who fail to live up to their   
   own standards.   
      
   And what if the allegations are true?  What if they can be proven to a   
   jury's satisfaction?  Such a law suit brings terrible risks with it.   
      
   Swill   
   --   
   The difference between being ruled by a central government   
   or the 1% is that the government is ultimately answerable   
   to the voters - the 1% are answerable to no one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)