So there is all this talk now about Bill Cosby and his abuse/rape of women. Please trust me when I say that if he did do this, he's no better than pond scum and should have to pay a price. Here's where I'm confused. It seems that the same people now calling for his head were saying just the opposite thing a while back when all the women were telling stories about how Bill Clinton abused and yes, even raped them. Back then it was, "Hey, they were consenting adults." or my favorite, "Just drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and look at the women you get." or "Look it's just sex. It doesn't affect the good work he does."
I'm confused again
- Thread starter mac
- Start date
I believe one of the differences I see is that in Cosby's case it appears that he drugged those woman before assaulting them. In Clinton's case it was more of a "he said she said" case in regards to whether it was consensual or not. Both involve very powerful men which I am sure created some reluctance on the part of the alleged victim. In both cases nothing was reported until much later after the incidents occurred which makes it very difficult to prove consent or rape one way or the other. While I certainly do not want to be an apologist for either of these guys I can see where it would be difficult in a court of law to prove rape or abuse with the evidence that has been revealed thus far. Clinton's impeachment was based on lying to Congress under oath not sexual assault. Cosby has never been charged although it appears he settles out of court with one accuser.
