Just testing out the new laptop my wife bought me for our anniversary!

(I'm stuck with this old booger of a computing
machine, but it'll have to do.)

Given the track record of Republicans on sexual
matters this year, I don't suppose that
anybody should entertain the idea that the
charges of sexual assault might actually be
TRUE?? Supposedly, there were plenty of
cameras in the area, so why the delay in
looking at footage?

What? A new laptop? We just had our 30th Anniversary and all I got was a trip to Hawaii.

The Democrats are intellectual fools..

They will destroy America...

The Democrats are intellectual fools..

They will destroy America...

Yep. And so we need to pray that America does not succumb to the hands of the democrats!

Jeremiah

"The Democrats are intellectual fools.."

That's what passes for political discussion
in regressive republican circles. No
wonder you're so easily led and manipulated.

Pukie claims "Supposedly, there were plenty of
cameras in the area..." and then goes on to present his conclusion, which is that there was "....delay in looking at footage.."

But the police report says "There is no video surveillance of the incident." This could mean that there were no cameras covering the area where the alleged assault allegedly occurred, or it could mean that there were cameras which did not show the assault.

I am curious about Pukie's source of information that there were "..plenty of cameras in the area.." and that there has been a "...delay in looking at footage.." Also, does "..in the area.." mean actually covering the site of the so-called (to use the words favored by Charlie Rangel) assault?

Now get ready, Pukie, because here come the twin demons of reason and logic---scary little buggers to you radicals, but I did give you time to run or get ready.

Why do you think anyone would make a highly public claim of an attack, going to the media about it, without pressing charges? Because of fear of retaliation? Retaliation is usually threatened for making something public, which she has already done. So that cat is out of that bag. Why not press charges? Note that she did not simply not press charges, she REFUSED to press charges.

Reason and logic say that there are few reasons to go as far as this woman has gone, and then refuse to take the next logical step, and that the most obvious (Occam's Razor) is that she knows her allegations will not stand up to a professional investigation, and she might then be subject to charges being filed against HER.

So reason and logic indicate that the true reason for making the allegation is not to get justice for a crime, or to protect other women from attack from this man, or any of the other reasons for filing a police complaint. The inclusion of the media is a sure signal that the goal was publicity, not justice.

And if she is afraid for her life, why not invoke the protection of the police, by filing charges and trying to get the man arrested and confined? Once the allegation has been made public, the harm has been done, so there is no down side to proceeding to the next logical step---unless there IS a down side, such as becoming liable for charges of filing false charges, and exposing a weak story to the kind of investiation that could be used in a civil suit for slander and libel.

She had better hope the guy wins, because slander and libel suits depend on damages, and if he wins there are no real and objective damages. But if her story causes him to lose, she ought to be in a world of hurt...and I mean legal hurt, not some cockamamie getcha "death threat" invented to draw in the mouth-breathing conservative-hating rabble.