Bill Cosby charged

[Correll]

Everyone gets their day in court, but he sure as hell looks guilty as hell.

it isn't looking good for him.

on the other hand, I detest Gloria Alred.

If he gets a fair trial, the Defense will have no trouble raising reasonable doubt.

If she was that fucked up from wine and drugs she willing took, 12 years ago, can she be sure she did not give some form of consent, verbal or non-verbal?

 

[Correll]

It's interesting that the Right is defending Cosby.

HOw so?

 

[Correll]

It's interesting that the Right is defending Cosby.

It's also just as interesting that the Left defends Bill Clinton.
Humans do that, we all circle around and defend our own.

Is Bill Cosby one of the RIght? I have not heard that.

JUst talking some sense to young black males hardly makes him one of the RIght.

 

[Correll]

So you will get your day in court, Coz! COOL!

Bill Cosby is charged with sexually assaulting a woman

This seems like a rather futile witch hunt to me. There is no way they can prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt 12 years after the fact with no rape kit, no video evidence, and no tox screen.

It's not futile.

THey get to totally destroy Bill Cosby's reputation and credibility, and punish him for going off the Plantation.

Which is the goal.

If they actually manage to put in him behind bars, that's just bonus.

 

[Correll]

What's ironic is that the authorities did not take the accusations seriously until a male comedian called Bill Cosby out:

After comedian Hannibal Buress called Cosby a serial rapist in a October standup set, assault accusations from the comedian's many alleged victims have unspooled at a rapid clip—just last night, two more women, including Lou Ferrigno's wife Carla, shared their stories.
n
It takes a lot of bravery to publically accuse a celebrity or a powerful politician.

Look at all the abuse the Clinton people did to the women who accused him.

Not when that celebrity has violated serious taboos and has been ostracized.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's assume that the prosecution has enough evidence to show that they lodged the complaint (and got the arrest warrant) just in time. Assuming (just for this limited example) that they now do not have a big problem with the issue of the statute of limitations, how does this case stack up?

Sometime, around12 years ago, a woman agreed to have the comic assist her (in her perfectly valid profession) as a kind of "mentor."

They became friendly, but she was uncomfortable when he became hands-y.

Still, she would come back for more mentoring and he offered her some drug to relax her.

She evidently did not know WHAT drug he was offering her. But she accepted it nonetheless. AND, she washed it down with wine. I should say with MORE wine.

Then, because of the drugs and wine she felt unable to control her own movements, was nauseated, tired and was apparently just semi-conscious.

She had some non violent sexual contact with the comic. (Not clear that she recalls how much or many of the details.)

She came-around the next day and her clothing and undergarments were re-positioned. (She had apparently had sexual contact before coming out of her drug induced stupor.)

She delayed in her reporting of the encounter thereafter.

But a few months later a report was made.

The comic was questioned and made some statements which, at best, constitute at least partial admissions.

The State prosecutor in that county made the choice to NOT press criminal charges against the comic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time passes -- Many other alleged "victims" come forward claiming similar things about the comic's sexual predatory behaviors.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the eve of the expiration of the 12 year statute of limitations, a new District Attorney reverses the previous determination. Charges get lodged.

How GOOD the case is for the prosecution seems to turn on how credible the complainant is.

It also seems to involve a bit of luck. That is, will the judge permit into evidence at the eventual trial (if there is one) any details of any of the other alleged incidents for which the comic was named as a perpetrator?

I use to hang out with a girl I wanted to sleep with and we would drink and do drugs. She never let me sleep with her. Are you saying I should have drugged her and raped her while she slept?

 

[sealybobo]

So you will get your day in court, Coz! COOL!

Bill Cosby is charged with sexually assaulting a woman

This seems like a rather futile witch hunt to me. There is no way they can prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt 12 years after the fact with no rape kit, no video evidence, and no tox screen.

It's not futile.

THey get to totally destroy Bill Cosby's reputation and credibility, and punish him for going off the Plantation.

Which is the goal.

If they actually manage to put in him behind bars, that's just bonus.

You said Cosby when you meant Clinton.

Now you can't deny that's what you are doing to Clinton. You only thinks that's what's happening to Cosby because its exactly what you're doing to Clinton.

 

[sealybobo]

What's ironic is that the authorities did not take the accusations seriously until a male comedian called Bill Cosby out:

After comedian Hannibal Buress called Cosby a serial rapist in a October standup set, assault accusations from the comedian's many alleged victims have unspooled at a rapid clip—just last night, two more women, including Lou Ferrigno's wife Carla, shared their stories.
n
It takes a lot of bravery to publically accuse a celebrity or a powerful politician.

Look at all the abuse the Clinton people did to the women who accused him.

Not when that celebrity has violated serious taboos and has been ostracized.

They killed Michael Jackson because he was going to speak out against the Iraq war.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says...

... "Back inna day...

... he woulda been lynched."

 

[Correll]

So you will get your day in court, Coz! COOL!

Bill Cosby is charged with sexually assaulting a woman

This seems like a rather futile witch hunt to me. There is no way they can prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt 12 years after the fact with no rape kit, no video evidence, and no tox screen.

It's not futile.

THey get to totally destroy Bill Cosby's reputation and credibility, and punish him for going off the Plantation.

Which is the goal.

If they actually manage to put in him behind bars, that's just bonus.

You said Cosby when you meant Clinton.

Now you can't deny that's what you are doing to Clinton. You only thinks that's what's happening to Cosby because its exactly what you're doing to Clinton.

The motive of the Republican leadership in supporting the Paula JOnes case was indeed almost certainly partisan advantage.

(Personally I was pretty offended that Bill Clinton got a pass on behavior that would have destroyed nearly every other white male in the country, AT THAT TIME.)



That being said, how do you know that that is NOT what is happening to Cosby?

 

[JimBowie1958]

http://gawker.com/the-time-donald-trumps-ex-wife-accused-him-of-brutally-1721129617

As Donald says, "When they hit me, I hit them back hard!"

From that article, "The “statement of Ivana Trump,” provided by the lawyers of Donald Trump and appended as a footnote, appears to claim that when Ivana used the term “rape,” she was referring not to the criminal act of rape, but something else that, even in 2015, remains pretty unclear."

And she never actually said, 'No', did she?

But Juanita Broaddrick tried to press charges as did Paula jones. But the Clinton Machine saw to it that neither woman had a day in court, the result of 'Womyn never lie about rape" Hillary Clintons 'Bimbo control'.

What did Hillary actually do to control the Bimbo Eruptions? Why is that not something you want to know about? You like the idea that a governor can rape a woman and get away with it?

 

[Correll]

Let's assume that the prosecution has enough evidence to show that they lodged the complaint (and got the arrest warrant) just in time. Assuming (just for this limited example) that they now do not have a big problem with the issue of the statute of limitations, how does this case stack up?

Sometime, around12 years ago, a woman agreed to have the comic assist her (in her perfectly valid profession) as a kind of "mentor."

They became friendly, but she was uncomfortable when he became hands-y.

Still, she would come back for more mentoring and he offered her some drug to relax her.

She evidently did not know WHAT drug he was offering her. But she accepted it nonetheless. AND, she washed it down with wine. I should say with MORE wine.

Then, because of the drugs and wine she felt unable to control her own movements, was nauseated, tired and was apparently just semi-conscious.

She had some non violent sexual contact with the comic. (Not clear that she recalls how much or many of the details.)

She came-around the next day and her clothing and undergarments were re-positioned. (She had apparently had sexual contact before coming out of her drug induced stupor.)

She delayed in her reporting of the encounter thereafter.

But a few months later a report was made.

The comic was questioned and made some statements which, at best, constitute at least partial admissions.

The State prosecutor in that county made the choice to NOT press criminal charges against the comic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time passes -- Many other alleged "victims" come forward claiming similar things about the comic's sexual predatory behaviors.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the eve of the expiration of the 12 year statute of limitations, a new District Attorney reverses the previous determination. Charges get lodged.

How GOOD the case is for the prosecution seems to turn on how credible the complainant is.

It also seems to involve a bit of luck. That is, will the judge permit into evidence at the eventual trial (if there is one) any details of any of the other alleged incidents for which the comic was named as a perpetrator?

I use to hang out with a girl I wanted to sleep with and we would drink and do drugs. She never let me sleep with her. Are you saying I should have drugged her and raped her while she slept?

Did you make passes at her while she was high?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And I am sure the DNC has lots more dirt on Donald. Just waiting for the right time.

You bet they do.
This is going to get downright mean and dirty next year.

And it is inevitable when you have a criminal under investigation and who may be under indictment by election time, going up against a political novice, though he seems to be handling himself well enough at the moment.

Hillary Clinton protected her husband from his victims getting justice, and that is a plain fact that libtards desperately want to avoid, but the Donald has enough money to get that message out there, and that too is a fact.

Combine those two facts and you have Hillary losing the election.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why don't you go off the plantation

lol, who?

EVERYBODY should go off the damned plantation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Let's assume that the prosecution has enough evidence to show that they lodged the complaint (and got the arrest warrant) just in time. Assuming (just for this limited example) that they now do not have a big problem with the issue of the statute of limitations, how does this case stack up?

Sometime, around12 years ago, a woman agreed to have the comic assist her (in her perfectly valid profession) as a kind of "mentor."

They became friendly, but she was uncomfortable when he became hands-y.

Still, she would come back for more mentoring and he offered her some drug to relax her.

She evidently did not know WHAT drug he was offering her. But she accepted it nonetheless. AND, she washed it down with wine. I should say with MORE wine.

Then, because of the drugs and wine she felt unable to control her own movements, was nauseated, tired and was apparently just semi-conscious.

She had some non violent sexual contact with the comic. (Not clear that she recalls how much or many of the details.)

She came-around the next day and her clothing and undergarments were re-positioned. (She had apparently had sexual contact before coming out of her drug induced stupor.)

She delayed in her reporting of the encounter thereafter.

But a few months later a report was made.

The comic was questioned and made some statements which, at best, constitute at least partial admissions.

The State prosecutor in that county made the choice to NOT press criminal charges against the comic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time passes -- Many other alleged "victims" come forward claiming similar things about the comic's sexual predatory behaviors.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the eve of the expiration of the 12 year statute of limitations, a new District Attorney reverses the previous determination. Charges get lodged.

How GOOD the case is for the prosecution seems to turn on how credible the complainant is.

It also seems to involve a bit of luck. That is, will the judge permit into evidence at the eventual trial (if there is one) any details of any of the other alleged incidents for which the comic was named as a perpetrator?

I use to hang out with a girl I wanted to sleep with and we would drink and do drugs. She never let me sleep with her. Are you saying I should have drugged her and raped her while she slept?

Did you make passes at her while she was high?

 

[Correll]

What's ironic is that the authorities did not take the accusations seriously until a male comedian called Bill Cosby out:

After comedian Hannibal Buress called Cosby a serial rapist in a October standup set, assault accusations from the comedian's many alleged victims have unspooled at a rapid clip—just last night, two more women, including Lou Ferrigno's wife Carla, shared their stories.
n
It takes a lot of bravery to publically accuse a celebrity or a powerful politician.

Look at all the abuse the Clinton people did to the women who accused him.

Not when that celebrity has violated serious taboos and has been ostracized.

They killed Michael Jackson because he was going to speak out against the Iraq war.

Don't be silly.

 

[Correll]

Let's assume that the prosecution has enough evidence to show that they lodged the complaint (and got the arrest warrant) just in time. Assuming (just for this limited example) that they now do not have a big problem with the issue of the statute of limitations, how does this case stack up?

Sometime, around12 years ago, a woman agreed to have the comic assist her (in her perfectly valid profession) as a kind of "mentor."

They became friendly, but she was uncomfortable when he became hands-y.

Still, she would come back for more mentoring and he offered her some drug to relax her.

She evidently did not know WHAT drug he was offering her. But she accepted it nonetheless. AND, she washed it down with wine. I should say with MORE wine.

Then, because of the drugs and wine she felt unable to control her own movements, was nauseated, tired and was apparently just semi-conscious.

She had some non violent sexual contact with the comic. (Not clear that she recalls how much or many of the details.)

She came-around the next day and her clothing and undergarments were re-positioned. (She had apparently had sexual contact before coming out of her drug induced stupor.)

She delayed in her reporting of the encounter thereafter.

But a few months later a report was made.

The comic was questioned and made some statements which, at best, constitute at least partial admissions.

The State prosecutor in that county made the choice to NOT press criminal charges against the comic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time passes -- Many other alleged "victims" come forward claiming similar things about the comic's sexual predatory behaviors.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the eve of the expiration of the 12 year statute of limitations, a new District Attorney reverses the previous determination. Charges get lodged.

How GOOD the case is for the prosecution seems to turn on how credible the complainant is.

It also seems to involve a bit of luck. That is, will the judge permit into evidence at the eventual trial (if there is one) any details of any of the other alleged incidents for which the comic was named as a perpetrator?

I use to hang out with a girl I wanted to sleep with and we would drink and do drugs. She never let me sleep with her. Are you saying I should have drugged her and raped her while she slept?

Did you make passes at her while she was high?

If she was high and she had given consent, and they had sex, would her consent have really been legal consent? After all he had "drugged her".

What if she sobered up and changed her mind?

What if he didn't call her back soon enough and she changed her mind?

What if she told her friends and they said she was a slut and she changed her mind?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If she was high and she had given consent, and they had sex, would her consent have really been legal consent? After all he had "drugged her".

What if she sobered up and changed her mind?

What if he didn't call her back soon enough and she changed her mind?

What if she told her friends and they said she was a slut and she changed her mind?

Or Dickweed the Libtard is just making it all up to make a rhetorical point and wouldnt know what to do with a pussy even if it was hovering in front of his face.

 

[sealybobo]

So you will get your day in court, Coz! COOL!

Bill Cosby is charged with sexually assaulting a woman

This seems like a rather futile witch hunt to me. There is no way they can prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt 12 years after the fact with no rape kit, no video evidence, and no tox screen.

It's not futile.

THey get to totally destroy Bill Cosby's reputation and credibility, and punish him for going off the Plantation.

Which is the goal.

If they actually manage to put in him behind bars, that's just bonus.

You said Cosby when you meant Clinton.

Now you can't deny that's what you are doing to Clinton. You only thinks that's what's happening to Cosby because its exactly what you're doing to Clinton.

The motive of the Republican leadership in supporting the Paula JOnes case was indeed almost certainly partisan advantage.

(Personally I was pretty offended that Bill Clinton got a pass on behavior that would have destroyed nearly every other white male in the country, AT THAT TIME.)



That being said, how do you know that that is NOT what is happening to Cosby?

The facts coming out. The details.

I think Cosby's a rapist and won't do time but the humiliation will kill him. Plus he's already paid out hush money in past settlements.

I think bill Clinton was probably a scoundral, womanizer, narcissist etc. But not a rapist.

 

[sealybobo]

So you will get your day in court, Coz! COOL!

Bill Cosby is charged with sexually assaulting a woman

This seems like a rather futile witch hunt to me. There is no way they can prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt 12 years after the fact with no rape kit, no video evidence, and no tox screen.

It's not futile.

THey get to totally destroy Bill Cosby's reputation and credibility, and punish him for going off the Plantation.

Which is the goal.

If they actually manage to put in him behind bars, that's just bonus.

You said Cosby when you meant Clinton.

Now you can't deny that's what you are doing to Clinton. You only thinks that's what's happening to Cosby because its exactly what you're doing to Clinton.

The motive of the Republican leadership in supporting the Paula JOnes case was indeed almost certainly partisan advantage.

(Personally I was pretty offended that Bill Clinton got a pass on behavior that would have destroyed nearly every other white male in the country, AT THAT TIME.)



That being said, how do you know that that is NOT what is happening to Cosby?

The same womanizing took out Herman Cain true true.