It just seems unlikely a millionaire with a job he loves would step out of the shower, spy a maid in his room, and then attack her- and risk losing everything. There’s no doubt it could have gone down exactly the way she said but I wonder if a more likely scenario was Lover Boy tried to seduce her, she was thinking a nice, big fat tip from the man in the $3000 a night room and he ended up giving her twenty bucks for cleaning the room. She started screaming bloody murder, he panicked and got out of town real fast.
I guess you've never heard of Andrew Luster, heir to the Max Factor fortune.
How about “I wonder if a more likely scenario was Lover Boy tried to seduce her, she REJECTED HIM and he ended up assaulting her because HE IS DA MAN. (Bill Clinton, call your office). She started screaming bloody murder, he panicked and got out of town real fast”
Which is more believable?
Opinions differ.
Why is it we were believing Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick (with less immediate contemporaneous evidence).
Why do have a few that believe in the innate guilt of Boy Clinton (with less contemporaneous evidence) but they will not believe some french socialist IMF big-wing with a known history is capable of the same sort of behavior?
Interesting thought to consider.