Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColtonGang who wrote (173143)	8/21/2001 3:23:52 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Based on you knowledge of law based upon International and Constitutional law interpretations you have provided. I think that before I could be sued the rapist would have to sue and successfully win a case against Ms Broaddrick. My statement is a statement that I find Ms Broaddrick public testimony totally believable and the rapist's words a lie. This is the case of the testimony of two individuals as to what the definition of consentual sex is. This is not about what the definition of what sex is or is not. This is a case about how after consensual sex Ms Broaddrick came to possess a face that clearly showed it had collided with a fist. If you wish to discount the testimony of all these Democrats you can, I don't. I assume folks are truthful until it is clear to me that they have been caught in a lie. As we all know the rapist still claims he never lied about having sex with that women. The rapist said he was not familiar with the facts in the Rich pardon case. Who is lying, who is telling the truth. What other facts and testimony support the truthfulness of the rapist and Ms Broaddrick and the rapist. Who is surrounded by a liar or liars. tom watson tosiwmee