[Slyfox]

Someone had made the comment that she had said that she talked to her lawyer son and concluded that she couldn't do anything about it. I am not disputing what she did. I would have done the very same thing. But, why did she conclude that she could do nothing? Precisely, because Clinton filled her with fear.

A guy is sitting in a prison in Texas for life for aggravated sexual assault because I had the balls to step up to some meely-mouthed women, in the jury room I was sharing with them, who thought the perp should just have his hands slapped. So, please, spare me the vitriol. I made a comment that didn't sit well with you. I KNOW that what she did was not consensual. How dare you infer that I would even suggest that!!

[SuzanneC]

"Someone had made the comment that she had said that she talked to her lawyer son and concluded that she couldn't do anything about it."

I believe her son was referring to the Starr interviewers. She couldn't do anything but to tell the truth about what happened. I don't believe he told her at the time of the rape that she couldn't do anything.

[doug from upland]

Let me clear up the situation with her attorney son. He did not know she had signed the false affidavit that came from Bruce Lindsey. She thought, as did others, that all of the false affidavits from Lindsey would keep them from having to testify. When he son finally found out the truth, he told her that she absolutely had to tell the truth in a deposition or before a grand jury. As painful as it was, she did. I also remember her having regrets for not having spoken sooner. Perhaps it could have prevented the groping of Kathleen Willey.

[Spunky]

"Someone had made the comment that she had said that she talked to her lawyer son and concluded that she couldn't do anything about it. I am not disputing what she did. I would have done the very same thing. But, why did she conclude that she could do nothing? Precisely, because Clinton filled her with fear............................................................ I made a comment that didn't sit well with you. I KNOW that what she did was not consensual. How dare you infer that I would even suggest that!!"

Slyfox, I've been out to dinner so I am late in responding.

At posting #38 you quoated doug from upland, where he said: "It was the 70s. Attorney general. She allowed a man to come to her room. It was his word against hers. A no win for her. Son is attorney. He advised her that she had no choice.

You then said; " I'm just curious though, even with consensual sex, wouldn't biting someone on the upper lip during sex be considered assault if the woman decided to press charges?"

It appears that we have miss comunicated all the way around.

If you had been more familiar with the situation you would have known that doug from upland was refering to her son being a lawyer now (as he was a child in the 70's) and telling her that to try to press charges when this all came out, a couple of years ago, it would be a no win situation because the statute of limitations had run out.

You ask, how dare I enfer that you might be refering to it having been consensual. Well, look at what you asked. We were talking about Juanita and you said; " I'm just curious though, even with consensual sex wouldn't biting someone on the upper lip during sex be considered assault if the woman decided to press charges?"

Now the way I took that was that you were saying even if she couldn't get him on rape, because it might have been consensual surely she could have gotten him on assault.

Oh and another reason I assumed you were male is because you used the term "penetrated her with fear". That seemed very odd terminology to me if it was coming from a female freeper.

Sorry for our miss communication.

[lizma]

I had the balls to step up to some meely-mouthed women, in the jury room I was sharing with them, who thought the perp should just have his hands slapped.

I've got jury duty Monday. I will keep this in mind. I'm not a fan of hand slapping.