Posted on 02/06/2019 10:20:50 PM PST by conservative98
Vanessa Tyson, the woman accusing Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault, is a political — and perhaps legal — wrecking ball for the Democratic rising star who until this week was positioned to take over as governor.
Fairfax risks not only his political career but also criminal charges, with Tyson alleging an assault at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, where a 15-year statute of limitations allows five more months for Tyson to pursue the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
It's also the camel's nose under the tent for the Marxist " show me the man and I'll show you the crime" guilty-if-accused. Both Stalin and Che wrote on this. Women think they have "sexual immunity": but they don't. Once the Marxists take over, women will at best see their loved ones "disappeared" and at worst, forced to sexually service govt. officials without recourse: ironically, what they pretend to be suffering under todat.
‘Or bit or hurt him!’
maybe...but then she might not be alive today...
No, because that was Marion Barry, who really was guilty as charged of cocaine use.
The problem is, the law is too coarse-grained an instrument to get these kind of cases right reliably.
So we have “believe all women” being used to overthrow “innocent until proven guilty.”
The difference is, women can prevent these things by not going to a man’s hotel room alone at night and kissing him on his bed; or, preserving physical evidence and going to th he police immediately.
(”OMG! YOU SEXIST PIG!”) No, it’s called traditional morality, and one of the reasons for it was to prevent these
sorts of problems.
We can easily go back to it, but that would mean self-control on the part of women, who have gotten used to sexual immorality where they can have their cake and eat it too.
But society flourished under those rules.
Whereas, if we throw out the presumption of innocence, we get show trials and disappearing, and not even Party members are safe. As we see with Fairfax.
You racist! Are you implying black men are necessarily violent?
Can we use this to splinter the Den party?
-PJ
‘This is the Blasey-Ford script move for move.’
except you’re forgetting the opposing political party angle, which explains everything in the Kavanaugh brouhaha...
(Sighs.)
15 years later, to get accused by a one night stand you’d forgotten about, of forcible assault, destroying your career. And without evidence, and a witch-hunt mentality by feminists and White Knights.
What do you expect a guy to say,”Heavens to Betsy”?
...
This is the fallout of the sexual revolution. Back when dates were chaperoned, and *women* slut-checked each other, there was a bright line which helped decide these cases.
But now women have got to have their cake and eat it too for so long — contraception, you can’t judge me, abortion, no fault divorce — that they think they can have both a worlf without consequences “I can go to a strange man’s hotel room alone at night and kiss him on his bed” — and *still* be believed without evidence 15 years later that he assaulted her.
This is the literal opposite of The Handmaid’s Tale.
Nope, that one is present also. Fairfax is not part of the Democratic power players’ inner circle, so while this is a struggle for power inside that party, political motive is still written all over it.
Lt Governor has already called her a bitch over this. The defense rests.
Not quite. Fairfax himself has admitted he had sexual relations with Dr Tyson (probably because the hotel was bound to have video footage of them entering the room, like all hotels do.). The only point of contention is, he says it was consensual.
That is the exact opposite of the case of Blasey Ford who has never met Justice Kavanaugh in her life and got paid to make things up to stop Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Read post #87.
Not even close. Even Fairfax himself admits oral sex took place. It occurred in his botel room so there is bound to be video tape of them entering the room.
Blasey Ford? She never met Kavanaugh in her life. All the evidence points to that. Why do you insist on equating the two?
“This is even more bizarre - she says the kissing was consensual but what followed wasn’t.”
Say what?
I noted the parallels in previous posts.
Again, there is nothing opposite about it at all. In both cases, she makes a claim she can’t back up. It doesn’t matter if they both admit in this case that they were alone together - there is still no evidence whatsoever of any non consensual activity. Evidence of consensual activity is decidedly NOT evidence of non consensual activity.
So this is exactly the same. She makes an accusation she has no way to prove, and he has no way to disprove. The claim is over a decade old. The same lawyer is involved, the one we know was also involved in bringing forth Swetnick as well. And the two accusers work at the same psych institution.
This is not quite as blatant a fraud as Blasey-Ford, but it’s damn close, and the differences are not material at all.
You do realize that just because a woman willingly kisses a man, it does not mean that the man can then do whatever the hell he wants.
This is why the old laws about chaperoning dates were necessary.
But women want it both ways: tingles über alles, AND the right to retroactively declare sexual assault or rape without evidence years later. This will destroy the country.
Look even Blasey Ford couldn't accuse Justice Kavanaugh of rape or even taking his penis out. She accused him of lying on top of her then leaving the room laughing with his friend, who totally denies anything like that ever happened.
So in one case oral sex took place (both parties agree on that). In the other case all the evidence is, they never even met before. It's the difference between day and night.
“You do realize that it’s difficult to take a claim of non-consenting at face value when a women is already alone with a man late at night on his bed in his hotel room?”
No, it isn’t.
There are plenty of things(such as anal sex, rough sex, oral sex) that a woman may not consent to. Doesn’t matter if the woman is already alone with him at night on his bed in his hotel room.
The question isn't whether she consents.
Once she's alone in a hotel room, with nobody else around, he's bigger and stronger.
The question is whether she can get anyone to *believe* her after the fact.
That's compounded by waiting 15 years and having no physical evidence.
Like I said women have gotten too used to a world where they have neither responsibility nor consequences. And their attempts to have it both ways will destroy society.
Because the presumption of innocence is SO much less important than tingles for the moment, amirite?
(Hint: it used to be just relations between the sexes were destroyed. Now the Dems are openly talking about infanticide, to make sure the woman NEVER has to have any consequences she doesn't want, no matter what.)
You’re no fun
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.