Posted on 12/07/2014 10:58:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Your misrepresentations are as regular as clockwork. You never bring up Cosby’s stance against Blacks on the dole, let alone the political threat to the Democrats this represents. You repeat he’s a Democrat as if that clears him, when actually it’s why he’s a threat to the Democrats - because he’s one of them, turning against their Plantation strategy. You even deny the existence of the Black Democrat Plantation!
Then you just flat-out lie about what I say, for example about rape being about sex, which I ver specifically did not say and instead included in a questioning of deeper motive beyond sex. Oops, you left that out. Must have been an accident. And you wearily repeat that these women did not meet him for sex, when they in fact had nothing else to offer him and met him uder all sorts of private conditions, some with a change of clothes, some going back again and again after having sex, etc.
And even your beloved DA, who is openly breaking every confidentiality rule, let alone defamation law, admits that the woman he’s “sure” Cosby raped but couldn’t somehow press charges against was an “unconvincing witness.” So she’s unconvincing, but he’s convinced, but he didn’t press charges, but he knows Cosby’s guilty? LOL, what a total crock!
No, Cosby is a liberal who despises republicans and supports Obama and you are trying to create a conservative, non racist Cosby that doesn’t exist.
You then go to the rape is for when you have trouble with girls sick claim. “” Supposedly, Cosby wanted that specific thing and nothing else, even though he was making all possible alternative, legal, effortless sexual conquests because of his fame and wealth.””
That is your defense, that he didn’t need to rape?
Lot’s of rapists are married and attractive to women and charming, but they rape because that is their sickness.
You also claim the rapes are all Playboy mansion related, how many are actually claimed to have happened at the Playboy mansion, one?
They took place in the women’s homes, at meetings at Bill’s homes in various states, on the beach, in restaurants, at parties, at studios where they worked with him, in the green room of the Tonight show on and other places than the (one?) at the Playboy mansion, and hotel suites.
After all I wrote, you say that? I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty. Neither I not Cosby need a "defense" - YOU need some evidence and you have none. These women say Cosby did these things. Cosby would say he didn't. They can bring character references, so can Cosby. You believe the women based on hearsay and your own obvious and frequently stated dislike of Cosby. That's it, that's all you have. And you refuse to look at the actual evidence that he didn't do it, concerning the reasons the women were there in the first place as well as Cosby's professional and personal character which was upheld for a half-century, as well as the clear and factual political forces against him.
I get that you're supporting the slander. But don't tell me you have evidence, because you don't. What you have is a soap opera and a lynching party.
Well, the old Obama supporting lefty has paid out one settlement to a woman who claimed he drugged and raped her, that is sealed.
Rape is more than “generally” seen as a crime of violence. “”Therefore to get a really goos look at the extremity of these charges, one must consciously subtract any and all need for sexual conquests of any kind whatsoever, because he was fully immersed in alll of those types of successes. What is left, according to these allegations, is a specific kind rape perversion requiring drugging - that’s it. Supposedly, Cosby wanted that specific thing and nothing else, even though he was making all possible alternative, legal, effortless sexual conquests becaue of his fame and wealth.””
NEW YORK —
A blanket denial from Bill Cosby’s lawyer dismissing allegations of sexual abuse by the comedian against several women has been clarified with a subsequent statement.
The new statement released Monday says that Cosby’s denials do not refer to accuser Andrea Constand, whose civil lawsuit against him was settled in 2006.
These are legal technicalities, just like the reasons your favorite DA didn't prosecute. He said she "wasn't a reliable witness." That means something about her testimony would seem to contradict her claim. Like if she went voluntarily up to his room after dinner, an expectation of sex could be concluded, from which a claim of rape would be impossible to determine.
Likewise, there are any number of awkward situations a Lefty like Cosby could get into messing around with women that have aptly nothing to do with rape - but which would be very bad for his career and hit the tabloids like a bomb. For example, what if she simply knew he got someone else pregnant? It could be anything. Crying rape is ready because it's inflammatory and totally under the woman's control. She could literally say she had sex with him and then in the middle of it said "no" and that was rape. Yeah, it would be dismissed, but the PR would damage him anyway and - here's the kicker - she couldn't be charged or sued for perjury or lying, because it's all about how she "felt" from microsecond to microsecond.
The settlement agreement, however, would require absolute silence, in the form of "cannot affirm or deny." That's why this clarification was made about his denial statement as not including his blanket denial - not because he's admitting anything, but because the terms of the settlement don't allow him to say anything at all.
Rape is a terrible thing based on violence, not sex. Take laws, however, are wildly out of control. In seeking every possible application for rape, women have undermined their own legitimacy. By admitting personal responsibility only when it suits their needs, they cannot be trusted without some sort of evidence. But why is that such a tragedy when they are so willing to destroy men without evidence?
I believe this whole Cosby thing I'd a very nasty Democrat psyop. The Rats lost the South, Hillary's losing points, and so they've gone back to their roots: divide and conquer. And look, just look, at the social divisions invoked in this one issue:
Men vs women
Rich vs poor
Black vs white
Black man vs white woman br Famous vs unknown
Adult vs (supposedly) child
Patriarchy vs feminist (Playboy mansion)
It stinks.
I know that he said that he believed her but that he felt that he didn't have the evidence for a conviction, which is common in these kinds of crimes, but I would like to see your quote the she "wasn't a reliable witness".
I believe you are lying again, and that isn't an authentic quote.
MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: ""What's interesting is that the D.A. did say he found her credible""
1. I haven't lied at all.
2. To say I'm lying "again" is simply being an inflammatory ass.
3. Your incessant assertions of hearsay and declarations of Cosby's guilt, while belligerently ignoring numerous concrete facts about Cosby's lifelong credibility, is, in fact, lying on your part.
4. Your citation itself is lying.
-----------------------------------------
From: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/showbiz/bill-cosby-rape-allegation-prosecutor/
"Castor released a statement on his office's website in 2005, saying that he found that 'insufficient credible and admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
cred·i·ble \ˈkre-də-bəl\
: able to be believed : reasonable to trust or believe
re·li·able \ri-ˈlī-ə-bəl\
: able to be trusted to do or provide what is needed : able to be relied on
: able to be believed : likely to be true or correct
Did you get those definitions, or are you going to lie again?
"'The problem with the case was she waited a year until she told police about it.' This left Castor no way to corroborate Constand's allegations, he said. He couldn't check her blood, urine, hair or fingernails for traces of drugs, he couldn't obtain hair or fiber for analysis, and he couldn't obtain a warrant to search Cosby's home for evidence."
Yeah, but OTHER THAN ALL THAT, he "knew" Cosby was guilty. Musta been his no-good shifty eyes. After all, why wouldn't Cosby be calm and jovial when being questioned by the cops over a rape accusation? If ya didn't do it, ya got nothing ta worry about, right? Perp musta broke out in a sweat, they always do that when they're guilty. And if you shine a light in their eyes, they squint. When that happens - ya got 'em.
Castor, whose assistants interviewed Cosby, said he felt the comedian was setting up a defense that Constand was at his house on her own volition and that anything occurring between them was consensual.
"Setting up a defense"? LOL, as if she wasn't at his house on her own volition? If she wasn't, that would be kind of a big deal, right? I mean I'm no cop, but on the TV shows when a woman is at a house NOT of her own volition, that's like, EVIDENCE of a crime. So why not say she WAS at his house on her own volition? Since, IN FACT, she WAS. And since that fact is fairly important - to the level of DENYING ANY CHARGES. The writing is so twisted, it's almost like YOU wrote it, ansel.
The TRUTH is that this fraud was such a stinking crock, Cosby's attorneys told the cops he'd sue the whole city for slander and false arrest, and they backed down and went away, because they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Just as I thought, you made up that quote.
It goes along with the other lies you have been making up, about his politics and everything being connected to the Playboy mansion and so on.
You really are over doing it.
You're pathetic.
It was pathetic to make up such a precise quote by the DA speaking of Constand, when it was a lie.
The DA believes Constand, and Cosby settled out of court with her on her claim that he drugged and raped her.
You have a habit of making things up and going overboard with creativity as you defend Cosby.
Pathetic.
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.