10 ms·
The evidence of Bill's sexual harassment is actually much thinner, since there is no tape or anything except several women's accusations (his confirmed affairs
by argonaut 10y ago
The evidence of Bill's sexual harassment is actually much thinner, since there is no tape or anything except several women's accusations (his confirmed affairs are a different matter - they were consensual and Trump also had plenty of affairs and these weren't the issue). And in one case there are several other people who testify against that woman.
Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard.
Broaddrick denied her accusations in an affidavit, and later retracted that denial. That destroys her credibility.
Edit: The only legit accusation is Paula Jones's, since Bill settled that case. Regardless, this is Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Hillary attacked Paula.
- kafkaesq 10y agoAnd in each case there are several other people who testify against that woman. I don't have time to get into the fine-grain of it with you -- but if that's your impression then I'd suggest you look more closely into the basic event chronology. (What you're saying about counter-testimony has some relevance to the Wiley case; but to the Jones and Broaddrick cases, none to speak of). Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard. The word of "one person" (who has been established to be pathological dissembler and obfuscator on the subject of, well, just about anything he opens his mouth about) against the generally consistent and credible statements of at least 15 accusers, to be precise. Combined with his irrefutable statements on tape. Again... it all comes down to the "would you hire this person?" standard.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]