If it was Estrich, it couldn't possibly be rape, or sex of any kind.
Posted on 07/14/2006 1:06:32 AM PDT by albyjimc2
But what got me was the final line:
"Will conservatives defend them, too?"
I am just dumbfounded. That cheap shot was completely left field and completely unwarranted. It disgusts me.
It might help to know the races are reversed in this case.
Conservatives in the Duke case assume that there was no rape. This article suggests that there was, in fact, a statutory rape in this case. Some would consider the little difference between there being "no rape" and "statutory rape" to be a significant difference in circumstances but, heck, why not turn it into an opportunity for class baiting, instead?
Hey Susan Estrich, does Juanita Broderick ring a bell, hmmm?
If it was Estrich, it couldn't possibly be rape, or sex of any kind.
Susan needs to understand that conservatives respect the actual "Truth". Meaning what is really "True". Related to being "Honest". For instance we do not consider it a trivial matter to lie under oath "about sex".
If this other rape case turns out to be another irrational persecution of the obviously innocent, then we conservatives will certainly come to their defense.
Susan Estrich has once again shown herself to be a moral imbecile with this inanity.
Can the woman not follow a thought to its conclusion? Can she not distinguish between true and false? Or between right and wrong? Nope.
Yes. If the evidence points in their direction. So far it ain't looking so good.
"Conservatives", whatever that is supposed to mean, started coming to the defense of the Duke lacrosse players when it began to appear that the charges against them were a crock and they were being railroaded by the prosecuter for political reasons.
If there is evidence in the Fresno case, or if any of the players have admitted to the assault, they SHOULD be arrested.
Asshole.
Susan ought to have used the case of Juanita Broaddrick as a comparable.......Lawyer Bennett trying to spin the truth into something unrecognizable because his client was the President of the United States. Or the case of Paula Jones being slurred and slammed because she was the victim of a rich and powerful President.
Supposedly Ms. Estrich is an attorney, yet she has concluded that the Duke players are guilty.
I dont agree that it was out of left field...I think the whole article was pretty much going that direction.
From the first sentence the subtext was that the Duke team players were white privilaged boys who were given every advantage.
The artcle fails of course to mention that basically the Duke players are almost certanily falsly accused and noone knows enough about the fresno case to draw any conclusions.
IF this idiot who wrote this article wants someone to blame they can blame the liberal press. They make front page news out of the Lacrosse team because at first it looked like white boys gang raped a black woman..that was news to them...I cant help but notice that there is no mention of the "race" of the football players...porobably a significant number of them were black and so this isnt a story...nothing to see here.
What was the first one?
Certainly, if they're innocent.
Whose side did Estrich take regarding Juanita Broaderick?
Seems to me that every Bill Clinton loving democrat - and Estrich is among the most vocal -- is on record as supporting serial sexual harrassment and rape by excusing Clinton.
Okay, what in the hell is Estrich's point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.