quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

It made the national news tonight on CBS. The embarrassment never ends it seems.

---

It was also one of the lead stories on the NBC Evening News. I then got to to see it again on the San Antonio local news.

It is all about leadership, and we have none.

---

Exactly how is our leadership supposed to keep news outlets from reporting on crimes?

---

Before they would have done it by not reporting it. It was call the Ramsower Way. RR didn't have control here though.

---

Did this one make the T9 reports?

---

Dunno. Feazell represents her in some capacity, a civil suit may be forthcoming.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

It made the national news tonight on CBS. The embarrassment never ends it seems.

---

It was also one of the lead stories on the NBC Evening News. I then got to to see it again on the San Antonio local news.

It is all about leadership, and we have none.

---

Exactly how is our leadership supposed to keep news outlets from reporting on crimes?

---

Before they would have done it by not reporting it. It was call the Ramsower Way. RR didn't have control here though.

---

Did this one make the T9 reports?

---

Dunno. Feazell represents her in some capacity, a civil suit may be forthcoming.

---

Vic referred her to Dunnam

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

He plead no contest to a LESSER charge.

That doesn't say he did or didn't rape the girl but it does take away the gun pointed at his head (prison and sex offender list).

It seems to me the DA had as much fear in losing the case as Anderson had in being found guilty.

---

As one lawyer put it:
"I've practiced criminal law for 20 years now. I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer in big cities and small towns. As a disclaimer, I don't know the prosecutor, and the last time I was in Waco was four years ago when I stopped for a burger after a funeral, and it'd been 15 years before that.
But this may - I want to stress may - not be as bad as it looks, at least as it applies to the prosecutor.
Juries in small communities can be PROFOUNDLY prejudiced, and I get the sense that in many ways Waco is still a small town.
We had an agg assault trial here in nac last week. He was charged with three counts. Domestic violence by strangulation, agg assault deadly weapon, and agg kidnapping.
He cleaned up real well, and didn't look too different from captain ****bag pictured above. The jury found him guilty on only the strangulation count. The prosecutor told me that one juror asked after if he could be tried again. Why? Because once they learned his priors, they didn't see him as such a "young man" that they didn't want to "burden with an aggravated assault" conviction.
The prosecutor may have inartfully and painfully expressed it, but sometimes, faced with the prospect of a likely not guilty, the desire to get ANYTHING is powerful.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet a shiny quarter that the following thought went through the prosecutor's mind: if I lose, he can get it expunged. Legally, it'd be as if it never happened. He'd go through life with no consequences. If I do the deal, he doesn't get what he deserves, but there will be at least something that will follow him. Something that will keep him from a life of easy wealth and privilege, or at least make it harder. There will be something.
So, yeah, maybe the prosecutor handled it wrong, but I don't think it was a white power hand signal sort of thing. I think it's more a "my county is going to **** shame this girl and their knee jerk white theofascist beliefs are going to let this ****bird get away with it."
At least that's my read."

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Dunno. Feazell represents her in some capacity, a civil suit may be forthcoming.

---

Vic referred her to Dunnam

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

The guy pleaded no contest to the charges of rape and assault.

He isn't being tried in the media. The court system that allowed him to evade consequences by pleading no contest instead of putting him on trial is being tried in the media.

---

whitetrash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Pivoting to another angle on this story, parents of sons and grandparents of grandsons need to think long before sending their sons and grandsons to UT-Dallas. What due process did Anderson get?

---

FIFY. BU probably ran the traps and came to a fairly reasoned conclusion.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

He plead no contest to a LESSER charge.

That doesn't say he did or didn't rape the girl but it does take away the gun pointed at his head (prison and sex offender list).

It seems to me the DA had as much fear in losing the case as Anderson had in being found guilty.

---

As one lawyer put it:
"I've practiced criminal law for 20 years now. I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer in big cities and small towns. As a disclaimer, I don't know the prosecutor, and the last time I was in Waco was four years ago when I stopped for a burger after a funeral, and it'd been 15 years before that.
But this may - I want to stress may - not be as bad as it looks, at least as it applies to the prosecutor.
Juries in small communities can be PROFOUNDLY prejudiced, and I get the sense that in many ways Waco is still a small town.
We had an agg assault trial here in nac last week. He was charged with three counts. Domestic violence by strangulation, agg assault deadly weapon, and agg kidnapping.
He cleaned up real well, and didn't look too different from captain ****bag pictured above. The jury found him guilty on only the strangulation count. The prosecutor told me that one juror asked after if he could be tried again. Why? Because once they learned his priors, they didn't see him as such a "young man" that they didn't want to "burden with an aggravated assault" conviction.
The prosecutor may have inartfully and painfully expressed it, but sometimes, faced with the prospect of a likely not guilty, the desire to get ANYTHING is powerful.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet a shiny quarter that the following thought went through the prosecutor's mind: if I lose, he can get it expunged. Legally, it'd be as if it never happened. He'd go through life with no consequences. If I do the deal, he doesn't get what he deserves, but there will be at least something that will follow him. Something that will keep him from a life of easy wealth and privilege, or at least make it harder. There will be something.
So, yeah, maybe the prosecutor handled it wrong, but I don't think it was a white power hand signal sort of thing. I think it's more a "my county is going to **** shame this girl and their knee jerk white theofascist beliefs are going to let this ****bird get away with it."
At least that's my read."

---

PartyBear said:

---

Now that they are on notice they have to do something however, especially a state school. No one wants to be Baylor through its history up until a couple of years ago regarding these matters.

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

He plead no contest to a LESSER charge.

That doesn't say he did or didn't rape the girl but it does take away the gun pointed at his head (prison and sex offender list).

It seems to me the DA had as much fear in losing the case as Anderson had in being found guilty.

---

As one lawyer put it:
"I've practiced criminal law for 20 years now. I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer in big cities and small towns. As a disclaimer, I don't know the prosecutor, and the last time I was in Waco was four years ago when I stopped for a burger after a funeral, and it'd been 15 years before that.
But this may - I want to stress may - not be as bad as it looks, at least as it applies to the prosecutor.
Juries in small communities can be PROFOUNDLY prejudiced, and I get the sense that in many ways Waco is still a small town.
We had an agg assault trial here in nac last week. He was charged with three counts. Domestic violence by strangulation, agg assault deadly weapon, and agg kidnapping.
He cleaned up real well, and didn't look too different from captain ****bag pictured above. The jury found him guilty on only the strangulation count. The prosecutor told me that one juror asked after if he could be tried again. Why? Because once they learned his priors, they didn't see him as such a "young man" that they didn't want to "burden with an aggravated assault" conviction.
The prosecutor may have inartfully and painfully expressed it, but sometimes, faced with the prospect of a likely not guilty, the desire to get ANYTHING is powerful.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet a shiny quarter that the following thought went through the prosecutor's mind: if I lose, he can get it expunged. Legally, it'd be as if it never happened. He'd go through life with no consequences. If I do the deal, he doesn't get what he deserves, but there will be at least something that will follow him. Something that will keep him from a life of easy wealth and privilege, or at least make it harder. There will be something.
So, yeah, maybe the prosecutor handled it wrong, but I don't think it was a white power hand signal sort of thing. I think it's more a "my county is going to **** shame this girl and their knee jerk white theofascist beliefs are going to let this ****bird get away with it."
At least that's my read."

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

He plead no contest to a LESSER charge.

That doesn't say he did or didn't rape the girl but it does take away the gun pointed at his head (prison and sex offender list).

It seems to me the DA had as much fear in losing the case as Anderson had in being found guilty.

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence and testimony from other individuals contradictory to testimony evidence from the victim probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

I notice that now that there are facts being reported by the local paper that might support the DA's decision you have gone off topic and onto a political rant.

It is incredibly biased to paint either party as the one that excuses bad sexual acts. Both parties have had their fair share of sexual abusers and had party members rush to their defense or respond with, "Yeah, but..."

We can back and forth tossing examples from both sides so don't waste everyone's time with that line of conversation.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

I notice that now that there are facts being reported by the local paper that might support the DA's decision you have gone off topic and onto a political rant.

It is incredibly biased to paint either party as the one that excuses bad sexual acts. Both parties have had their fair share of sexual abusers and had party members rush to their defense or respond with, "Yeah, but..."

We can back and forth tossing examples from both sides so don't waste everyone's time with that line of conversation.

---

I didn't bring up Kavanaugh--FadSkier did, as an example of poor persecuted men wrongly accused by evil women. But I'm tired beyond keeping my temper of conservatives acting like the only story there is that poor Brett got a raw deal, when most non-Republicans and more than a few moderate Republicans (probably mostly women) think that isn't the case.

As for the Waco case, pleading no contest, if I understand it correctly, doesn't mean you aren't guilty. It simply means you aren't contesting the charges against you. In this case, Mr. Anderson got a very good deal. Except in the court of public opinion.

And, while I agree that both parties have their fair share of sexual abusers, Republicans have proven much more adept than Democrats at either ignoring, disrgarding, excusing, defending or covering up the sexual misconduct of their politicians, including Newt Gingrich, who was all over Clinton while he was living with Calista while married to his second wife. Dennis Hastert tried to cover for Mark Foley and then was revealed to himself be a pedophile; he may still be in the federal pen. Kavanaugh obviously drank hard and didn't remember everything he did in high school and his alcholic buddy went into hiding, but Blasey Ford was villainized by the right. There's a huge double-standard. I'd like to see Republicans hold their own pols responsible for keeping their pants zipped and their hands to themselves. I'm still waiting.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

I notice that now that there are facts being reported by the local paper that might support the DA's decision you have gone off topic and onto a political rant.

It is incredibly biased to paint either party as the one that excuses bad sexual acts. Both parties have had their fair share of sexual abusers and had party members rush to their defense or respond with, "Yeah, but..."

We can back and forth tossing examples from both sides so don't waste everyone's time with that line of conversation.

---

I didn't bring up Kavanaugh--FadSkier did, as an example of poor persecuted men wrongly accused by evil women. But I'm tired beyond keeping my temper of conservatives acting like the only story there is that poor Brett got a raw deal, when most non-Republicans and more than a few moderate Republicans (probably mostly women) think that isn't the case.

As for the Waco case, pleading no contest, if I understand it correctly, doesn't mean you aren't guilty. It simply means you aren't contesting the charges against you. In this case, Mr. Anderson got a very good deal. Except in the court of public opinion.

And, while I agree that both parties have their fair share of sexual abusers, Republicans have proven much more adept than Democrats at either ignoring, disrgarding, excusing, defending or covering up the sexual misconduct of their politicians, including Newt Gingrich, who was all over Clinton while he was living with Calista while married to his second wife. Dennis Hastert tried to cover for Mark Foley and then was revealed to himself be a pedophile; he may still be in the federal pen. Kavanaugh obviously drank hard and didn't remember everything he did in high school and his alcholic buddy went into hiding, but Blasey Ford was villainized by the right. There's a huge double-standard. I'd like to see Republicans hold their own pols responsible for keeping their pants zipped and their hands to themselves. I'm still waiting.

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

I notice that now that there are facts being reported by the local paper that might support the DA's decision you have gone off topic and onto a political rant.

It is incredibly biased to paint either party as the one that excuses bad sexual acts. Both parties have had their fair share of sexual abusers and had party members rush to their defense or respond with, "Yeah, but..."

We can back and forth tossing examples from both sides so don't waste everyone's time with that line of conversation.

---

I didn't bring up Kavanaugh--FadSkier did, as an example of poor persecuted men wrongly accused by evil women. But I'm tired beyond keeping my temper of conservatives acting like the only story there is that poor Brett got a raw deal, when most non-Republicans and more than a few moderate Republicans (probably mostly women) think that isn't the case.

As for the Waco case, pleading no contest, if I understand it correctly, doesn't mean you aren't guilty. It simply means you aren't contesting the charges against you. In this case, Mr. Anderson got a very good deal. Except in the court of public opinion.

And, while I agree that both parties have their fair share of sexual abusers, Republicans have proven much more adept than Democrats at either ignoring, disrgarding, excusing, defending or covering up the sexual misconduct of their politicians, including Newt Gingrich, who was all over Clinton while he was living with Calista while married to his second wife. Dennis Hastert tried to cover for Mark Foley and then was revealed to himself be a pedophile; he may still be in the federal pen. Kavanaugh obviously drank hard and didn't remember everything he did in high school and his alcholic buddy went into hiding, but Blasey Ford was villainized by the right. There's a huge double-standard. I'd like to see Republicans hold their own pols responsible for keeping their pants zipped and their hands to themselves. I'm still waiting.

---

I don't recall all the Democrats rushing to condemn Bill Clinton on either his alleged sexual assaults or affairs. How many women did JFK sleep with? Stories abound of him instructing interns to give blow jobs to White House aids. Bill Clinton couldn't hold his jock.

Again, pardon me if I don't see either party as the righteous one when it comes to turning a blind eye to one of their own.

---