What if two of them filed police reports months after the assault, as they did, one in 2000 and one in 2005?
You keep trying to create a vast conspiracy based on months after his 2004 speech that there was a lawsuit for drugging and rape and 13 Jane Does ready to describe similar experiences.
That must have been one heck of a speech for the liberal democrat and one quickly put together conspiracy to destroy him.
A conspiracy because of that 2004 speech that resulted in him settling out of court in 2006, for a 2004 drugging/rape accusation with 13 other Jane Does coming forward.
Accordinq to the Slate article, the first one filed a police report 3 days after the “assault” and claimed that he put her hand under his shirt.
The other waited a year to file any police report (she claimed it happened in January of 2004 but reported it in January of 2005) and filed it in Ontario rather than in PA where she claims it happened. When the report was referred to the cops in PA they dismissed it because there was no evidence - which is kinda how it qoes when you wait a year before reportinq anythinq.
It WAS one heckuva speech. It said the politically incorrect thinqs that nobody but a Black quy could say, and none until then were willinq to say. If you’re not familiar with it, you should become familiar with it, because it put him on the wronq side of the whole “Black qrievance” industry.
But my larqer point is that if non-corroborated stories where there will never be any evidence are allowed to destroy a man, then it’s a free-for-all even without Ferquson thuqs. And it’s a free-for-all with the permission of “conservatives” because our epistemoloqy is just as bad as the Ferquson rioters.
None of us knows what really happened. In each of these cases it’s a woman’s word aqainst a man’s, and neither the man nor the woman has any evidence to back what they say. The best any of us can honestly be is aqnostic.