Posted on 02/27/2020 5:07:53 AM PST by Rummyfan
Bad link - takes me to an article from November ...
Link is to wrong article.
The link leads to another article.
This is the correct link http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2020-02-26.html
Gee...I saw the title and thought they were talking about Rosie O’Donnell, or maybe Michael Moore.
Ann is grossly wrong on that.
Such women were the worst enablers.
There were Jews like Soros, there are women like Hollywood starlets. Same thing.
I fail to see how a woman who rejects a man’s sexual advances and leaves his presence is enabling him. Do you expect her to call a press conference and say “He came on too strong” ??? That would not work unless he did something that was clearly criminal in his advance. An implied hang out with me and I’ll help you out is not press conference material.
I followed this case closely and what I don’t get is there seems to be no physical evidence. It was a he said she said (actually many shes) case completely. Now I’ve never served on a jury and am not a lawyer but I don’t see how anyone could be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” on just testimony? I know if I was on a jury I couldn’t send someone to jail just because I believed someone’s version of events over another persons. Then add in the fact that these woman continued contact with him after the assaults.
I mean there have been murder cases where there is no body but isn’t there some physical evidence? Like a weapon, or blood, or dna? could someone be convicted of murder just on the testimony of witnesses without any physical evidence?
Idiot.
Read the quote again. Those women HAD SEX WITH HIM and then sent reinforcing texts.
The quote properly read says this:
“The true heroes are the girls whose names we don’t know, but had sex with him anyway, then sent him emoji-filled, suck-up emails because they wanted to be “stars.””
“...The true heroes are the girls whose names we don’t know — not the ones who were grossed out by the pig, but had sex with him anyway, then sent him emoji-filled, suck-up emails because they wanted to be “stars.”...”
What part of “Not the ones who...” do you not understand.
“The true heroes are the girls whose names we don’t know, but had sex with him anyway, then sent him emoji-filled, suck-up emails because they wanted to be “stars.””
Why do you change someone's words to fit your personal understanding (which is false)? She said the true heroes are the ones who left the room NOT the ones who had sex with him and continued to enable him. Pay attention.
You left out a ‘not’.
Thank you. Sometimes Ann C. is a little difficult to read and I kept checking to see if indeed I was the “idiot” that Conservative Mind say I am.
If she was referring to the women who ran away in the prior paragraph, she would have said “The true heroes are THESE women whose names we don’t know...”
She is not referencing those women.
Work on your reading skills. They are lacking. You are the only one on this thread with this comprehension problem.
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.