Can and will get away with what ever they can.. Just the price of doing what's illegal..
m

Reading on shows that it was actually the DA who "got scared."

We've heard that before from Vance's office....it took the French to bring Strauss -Kahn down for prostitution. Vance has a history of not finding credible evidence when influential people are involved.

If Ann Coulter told the police I met with Barack Obama, alone, and he groped me - would you agree that Mr Vance should file criminal charges against Obama?

If you do not agree Obama should be charged then why do you think Weinstein should have been charged?

He said, she said, by itself, is not grounds for a criminal charge.

Many people think that the prosecution of witches in Salem was a bad idea even though the good people of Salem were darned sure those ladies were witches. I suggest we not return to the standard of prosecution back then. Even if they were witches.

and I believe that is why the Greg Kelly case was dismissed. That, however, was not the case with Strauss-Kahn, who was later found to run a prostitution ring and settled with the maid for 1.5 mil and apparently Weinstein was an open secret, not difficult to get at the truth.

That Mr Vance did not have evidence sufficient to criminally charge Weinstein. You suggest they charge Weinstein and LATER look to see if there was proof? I suggest that the proof be obtained BEFORE charges are filed. And my comment was limited to the situation in which the only evidence consists of contradicting statements by two people in the room.

As to Straus-Kahn, I do not know the facts and therefore have no opinion on that matter.

Millions were convinced Hillary should have been prosecuted and said the Republican Comey acted wrongly. Millions are convinced Bill Clinton should have been prosecuted for rape. They think prosecutors were corrupt.

I personally think the odds of a corrupt prosecutor corruptly deciding not to prosecute are very very small.

I think we need a lot of evidence before we decide a prosecutor corruptly chooses not to prosecute. If anything I think it almost more likely to think it burns a prosecutor up whenever an innocent man escapes the chair. Think Nancy Grace with her hair trigger for prosecution.

was being investigated by NYPD...the issue became a reluctant witness...but now they have plenty of witnesses.

And given the whole did not pursue the Trumps issue, over-ruling staff, because 'could not make a case' (and then taking a donation, giving it back, then taking another) added to everything else there becomes questions about Vance that won't go away.

That the police were with her, wired, but that at the last minute she refused to go through with it. So no, on the matter I responded to, no, I do not know that they have tape.

I have heard a tape where he asks a woman to watch him take a shower. Here in California I do not think it is illegal to ask a woman to watch you shower. I doubt that that tape would justify Mr Vance filing criminal charges even if he knew about the tape (which I doubt). But I do think we should require Weinstein to sing the Radiohead song I am a creep on national TV. And I do believe those who say Weinstein raped them. I do hope Weinstein goes to jail for life.

But I do not fault a prosecutor who declines filing criminal charges based only on he said she said.

"The New Yorker" reportedly obtained a tape recording of Harvey Weinstein coaxing a young actress admitting to groping a woman that was secretly captured during an NYPD sting operation. CNN is trying to confirm the authenticity of the tape with the NYPD, but the department confirms they investigated a misdemeanor sexual abuse complaint against Weinstein. His reps say they have no comment on the tape”

http://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2017/10/10/the-new-yorker-weinstein-nypd-sting-audio-sot.hln.


“The way the interaction unfolds (listen below) is all too familiar. Weinstein, who was captured on tape through a police investigation, can be heard alternately pleading with and threatening the model, Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, citing his own influence and power while trying to diminish her.
At one point, he tells her, “I’m a famous guy.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-sequel_us_59dcea8be4b0a8e1367f1bae

"I do not know the facts and therefore have no opinion on that matter..."

Would if that apply to vote-purchasing as well... Sigh.

he would feel only bones of a skeleton.

Try again.

I guess I wasn’t clear. If Ann told police that she met alone with Obama and Obama groped her Ann, not that he groped me Cicada - would that justify Vance bringing charges against Obama?

I vote no.

Obama would never do that.

Use Trump instead - since he wouldn't have gone for her bones - he would have gone right for the p*ssy.

If we prosecuted people because we think they are bad people, ignoring the legal requirement that we have proof, then we will rapidly become a Tyranny. Trump would prosecute Hillary and send her to jail. We have civil liberties to protect “bad people” because our founding fathers understood that the prejudices of the majority, if not limited, would lead to injustice. The argument that Obama should not be prosecuted because he is a good person while Weinstein should be prosecuted on exactly the same evidence because he is a bad person would lead to tyranny in a very short time.

Because Obama has not done this, is not TIED to this, and all you are doing is TRYING to tie him to this 'thing' in search engines.

Knock it off - Obama should not be tried because he has NEVER been accused of doing this.

Now move it to TRUMP who is rapey and Coulter would love it if he grabbed her p*ssy meaning he couldn't be PROSECUTED either.

Why do you continue to insist on creating search engine 'hits' tying this to President Obama?

That's just plain flat out EVIL - not YOU. The action. I would never attack someone like that at DU -


OR PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!!!

she was not a good candidate for that kind of sting