From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton, A Serial Sexual Predator And The Man Who Raped Me
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:49:19 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2024-08-26 17:28, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <vaj6b0$2lmgd$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>
>> On 2024-08-26 16:53, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vaj25g$2ksk7$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-08-26 15:13, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <vaitn3$2k9p2$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-08-26 14:47, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:11:08 -0700, Alan says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not guilty. No rape charges.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then you'll apply that same standard to Clinton, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take him to trial and you'll see the difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The women he "allegedly" raped, will have a LOT more to say than the fruitcake E. Jean Carroll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No rape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No sexual assault.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Found to have sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But somehow, that isn't enough proof, when no testimony under oath at
>>>>>> all is sufficient in the other case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still no rape. None.
>>>>
>>>> Found to have committed rape after a trial by jury.
>>>
>>> After a trial? Only cheaters would do something like that. Why isn't he
>>> in jail?
>>
>> Because it was a civil trial.
>>
>> But it was still a trial and the jury still found as a matter of FACT
>> that he had committed sexual assault.
>
> But not rape.
By a narrow legal definition. It was what anyone in the ordinary world
would call "rape".
But thanks for admitting that they found that he committed it.