XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans   
   From: me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net   
      
   "Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   news:c5o81d9qfureqfvijcis4hcrbp1hncslq5@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:57:51 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>> You assume the allegations are false and not provable to a jury.   
   >>   
   >>If they were provable to a jury, then she would have long since filed a   
   >>civil suit for damages, even if a criminal suit can no longer be brought.   
   >   
   > There are no guarantees.  The women don't want to go to court any more   
   > than Moore does.  Why spend money playing Russian Roulette with a   
   > jury?   
      
   I see, she doesn't want to risk going to court....but she has no issues   
   making unsupported accusations in public?   
      
   Accusations which may be totally and utterly false, or they may be true.   
   However without support, and a unwillingness to put her case to the   
   test....why should/would anyone believe her? Or just as important, consider   
   him guilty?   
      
      
   >>If she can't prove it in court, then her allegations could well be false   
   >>and   
   >>without such evidence should be dismissed as such.   
   >   
   > Same can be said of Moore.  Thing is, it's not worth the risk and it   
   > keeps the story alive.  Everybody chills, the voters decide.   
      
   And as such it's not about truth, facts, or even what really   
   happened....it's merely who can tell a better story.   
      
   Then you wonder why I don't accept such unsupported accusations,   
   particularly those made LONG after the fact and then on the eve of an   
   election.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)