If you’re going to speak for others then read what the fuck they posted. Moto specifically singled out my “Don’t blame the victim” sentiment as being somehow “hypocritical.” Since the Clinton-Lewinski blow job did not entail a victim (“entail” heh heh), then I am baffled as to the nature ofthe hypocrisy.
Oh…and it didn’t entail a conviction either. Where did you get that “proven guilty” thing, the Free Republic?
Yeah, what was I thinking? Why of course any girl would be so overwhelmed by having the POTUS pay attention to her that she’d just roll over and make hot monkey love to him. After all, she’s just a girl. She couldn’t make up her own mind about who she should play sex game with. Girls are like that.
duffer, you aren’t just a dolt. You’re willfully, persistently, aggressively stupid.
Hrm. TSG speculates she’s got recordings. That would, of course, give her a case.
Diogenes, you are dodging some of our questions. How can you be so convinced, so soon? Just because O’Reilly’s obnoxious, it doesn’t mean that he must be guilty. I won’t be shocked if he’s guilty, but I see no reason to jump to that conclusion so soon, and be so adamant that it must be so. You are losing credibility on this one.
See Post #17.
What the fuck are you talking about? Your posts in this thread alone counter anything lame I’ve said on the conservative side in other threads.
O’Reilly hits Bush often on both his Fox show and his radio show. He interviewed (not debated) Bush? Yup. He also offered Kerry equal time. But Kerry wants softball questions so he doesn’t have to take a stand on anything other than “Bush is Evil” (copyright, trademark, all rights reserved, Hi liberal Doper newsletter subscribers).
Go back to Air America, listen for a week and come back with the 3 minutes of material that make sense.
Asserting Ashcroft has something to do with this shows how desperate you are.
Talk to me when you have proof before I bring up WhiteWater-Gate. :rolleyes:
Look, if you accept this woman’s account without corroborating evidence, then you have to accept, similarly, the accounts of Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaderick and Paula Jones.
If you fail to do so, you’re not being intellectually honest. You’re just picking up whatever garbage is handy to throw around.
And you’re fat. 
(Please come up with new insults for me. This one’s getting old)
Wait a moment. The plaintiff has more than hearsay: she has her own testimony with regard to the contents of the conversation. This is not hearsay, even though it is testimony concerning an out-of-court statement. There is sufficient evidence, if believed by the finder of fact, for a finding that the conversations happened.
Whether they constitute “sexual harrassment” is unclear to me.
I’ve spelled it out twice now, and others have too. Quit dodging the question, please.
To be honest, my very first feeling about that was that she had probably been hit on but that she was being encouraged to exaggerate her own distress about it and probably embellish the details (I don’t believe BC whipped it out). In any case, the judge in the caes found that even if everything PJ said was true, it still wasn’t sexual harassment since there were no repercussions. According to her own testimony, BC said “I don’t want you to do anything you don’t want to do,” and immediately stopped when she told him to.
I’ve always had a feeling that BC was accustomed to getting a whore sent to his room and when PJ showed up he (understandably) mistook her for that whore. When he figured out she wasn’t the nightly skank that she appeared to be, he apologized and sent her on her way. No harm, no foul.
Some people are getting too carried away with what I said. All I said was that I was sure he was guilty. That’s just a gut feeling. It doesn’t mean I would vote to convict that on the evidence, believe me.
I just think that self-righteous, moralistic assholes always have something like this in the closet and it strikes me as exactly the kind of thing. BO’R would do.
I suppose you could say that I’m just guessing “guilty” off the cuff. I’m not on the jury and if I was I would not find liability unless the evidence was there.
Happy?
I’ll wait for tapes bfore I’ll buy into this one. One call, sure, shit could happen and one wouldn’t be prepared. However, if you continue to work w/the SOB and don’t make arrangments to prove this sort of shit, you’re not smart enough to do a job above ditch digging, YMMV.
Yeah, that’s a pretty self-defeating request if the plaintiff’s accounts are accurate. However, if the defendant knows he’s fucked if tapes exist, he could just be trying to flush out the evidence; the whole world will hear it anyway, so why not try to see if the opponent has the goods sooner than later? Maybe it would affect the defence’s strategy.
No way to know until the case goes to trial, if it ever does. I do reiterate my concern that if the plaintiff has nothing but hearsay to support her allegations, the case lacks merit, and I must question the plaintiff’s motives.
Funny, you never seem to guess guilty when the accused is a nice, popular Democratic president.
Even if he’s accused time and again.
Bricker has accurately responded to that concern. If she says, “Bill O’Reilly said X, Y, and Z to me,” that’s not hearsay. That’s perfectly admissible evidence. If a jury believes her, they can certainly find for the plaintiff with nothing more to go on.
You didn’t cite Willey or Broadrick or Jones, you cited Lewinsky, who was not a “victim.”
Why did you quote my “don’t blame the victim” comment as being “hypocritical?” What victim am I blaming.
So, as a non-judgemental, all-inclusive type of liberal, what exactly does a skank whore look like? Can we get the definitive description?
How tolerant of “alternative” lifestyles, indeed. :rolleyes:
Guessing “guilty” would have been the wrong call, as it turns out. Sounds like Diogenes’ batting average is pretty good, so far.
Only one of those women ever brought a legal action against him…and she was laughed out of court.
Right.
This may seem like a hypertechnical lawyer trick, but hearsay is a complicated subject.
It’s all in what the evidence is admitted to prove.
If she testifies, “Bill told me, ‘Hey, baby, I have a nine-inch shlong!’” then that’s not hearsay. It’s not admitted to show that Bill is well-endowed – if it were, then it WOULD be hearsay. It’s admitted to show that sexually suggestive conversation happened.