SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (44943)11/13/2017 9:38:26 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 360803
 
>> Your belief, my belief- it's just bullshit based on fake news, right? And there you are- buying it.

Honestly, the news wasn't "fake" in 1998. It leaned Left, but didn't just make shit up. Today, it makes shit up. No sources. Anonymous sources confirming anonymous sources with no sources on the record. It is a total pile of shit today. Surely, you can admit that.

In 1998, every news agency was ready and willing to cover the Clinton sexual misconduct. True, some wouldn't cover the really damning stories, but in some cases, those witnesses were reluctant in the first place.

Broaderick was a highly credible witness, complete with contemporaneous corroboration. If she had gone after him at the time she might have won that case.

As to Trump, I admit to not researching each of these women's stories, but their claims really appeared to be a coordinated political attack and none rose to the level of Broaderick. You can't substitute a large number of accusers for one really credible one. Because you can easily find a dozen a women who (a) don't like Trump, (b) don't like Trump's politics, and (c) who Trump may have inappropriately hit on. That is not the same as a rape or taking advantage of an infatuated girl who is "still in love with Bill" -- 20 years later.

And that's not to mention Kathleen Willey who was also a highly credible claimant beyond the other, obvious ones.