Posted on 10/29/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by facedodge
Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell 's campaign has responded to our story earlier today about her 2007 Halloween one-night stand . "I am not a witch," it begins. Just kidding! The statement, which was posted to O'Donnell's Facebook page, is below.
(Excerpt) Read more at gawker.com ...
Slimeballs.
Note that Gawker is just keeping the story in play....
If Gawker had two nickels to rub together, O’Donnell should sue them. They don’t, so it isn’t worth it.
As for the man who claims to have had her in his apartment, but didn't have sex with her, are we to assume that he is a gentleman for not taking advantage of a woman whom he claim's was drunk, or simply that he is a selective rapist because her body hair was not to his rapist desires?
Can anyone tell me how this puts her in a bad lite?
Is it just me?
When I read stories like this the only thing I think and feel is, “now especially I -WILL- support her.”
There is a degree of “screw you” (the PC version) attitude that comes over me when I see people get attacked like this.
"When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead—to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me."
What he have here with O'Donnell are a series of breathless newspaper articles revealing to the public that in the past she wore a costume for Halloween. And that's not all -- this grown woman was seen imbibing in public! And she was accompanied by a man -- a man whom everyone now aknowledges was in a platonic relationship with her!! Is this the sort of person you want to vote for??
What would she sue them for? THey published a story given to them. The truthfully reported what the person said to them. The published pictures which nobody is saying were photoshopped.
So what would be litigated? That the story is embarrasing?
I think the part of the story that is seen as a potential problem is that three years ago, according to the story, she got drunk, went to a man’s apartment that she barely knew, and got naked on his bed after making out with him.
There’s “nothing illegal” about that, it just doesn’t help a person who is trying to be taken seriously.
I guess she should be glad the guy didn’t take more pictures while she was unclothed.
Now, I don’t know if the story is accurate — I haven’t seen O’Donnell’s campaign question it yet, but that doesn’t mean it is true, it could just mean they don’t see the point in getting into a he-said/she-said argument, especially since it seems clear she WAS at the apartment (since they have pictures).
Had she been there and been as drunk as the perpetrator says and he unclothed her, he is possibly guilty of a sexual offense. possibly Gross Sexual Imposition. There are laws against taking advantage of people who are drunk. The statute of limitations is not yet up
Had he really refused to have sex wit her because he did not like the looks of her hidden grooming, than he is either lying, or he is gay. Period!
The entire story sounds completely fabricated and except for some pictures of her at a bar with a lady bug costume on there is no proof of any kind.
I happen to believe that a quick filing of a defamation lawsuit against the the website, it's owners and editors, PERSONALY! against their personal property, and against the source of the story is highly in order.
Also should sue Coons just for being ugly, stupid and thoroughly detestable!>
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.