There's not always evidence. There may not be any or any good evidence. That has no correlation to whether or not anything actually happened. You come down on one side and I come down on another side; they're just opinions. I'm not making up any scenarios. Well, I did start a screenplay but I found something more interesting... I have a different take on racism than most here, so there is a lot lost in translation. My penance is to suffer the false accusations about my being a racist when I think I'm just being more brutally honest. It cracks me up that you guys feel fine to accuse me of racism on a weekly basis but get all in a dither because I'm suggesting that the lack of conviction in a courtroom has nothing to do with whether or not this really happened. If it did really happen, Al Gore is walking amongst our wives and daughters. Anyone a massage thereapist?
You just did make something up in the first paragraph and then in the next one you said you aren't making something up. You are making up the idea that there might be some evidence out there. You could be a rapist. It could have happened. Just because there is no evidence or good evidence doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Your logic is screwed. An 18 wheeler could crash into your living room tomorrow at 3 PM. It could happen. It's possible. Even though that is possible is it worth debating that possibility and introducing it as a serious alternative on a board where people hope to have some reasoned discussion? Not only do we not know of evidence that it did happen, we know that some of the complainant's statements and evidence aren't reliable. That tends to make it look like the truth is in the other direction. If someone said they were going to drive a semi into your living room tomorrow at 3 PM but then after investigation it turns out the person who said it doesn't own a semi, is blind, and is 11 years old, it would be silly for me to still argue that it's possible, even though it still would be possible. Yet you sit there and make up ways the 11 year old blind child could still drive the rig into your living room, and post them on the bbs and expect others to take them or you seriously on these things.
The reality is, while an incident like this does give pause initially, we do know that in this country he is innocent until proven guilty. You are, welcome to your opinion, but the charade of your Beckesque "I'm not saying he's guilty, but that's what's out there" is being overplayed. Maybe something inappropriate happened, maybe not, we will never know really, but what we do know is that none of the so called evidence backs up the accusation, and the people whose job it is to deliberate the merits of taking this to court felt there was no case. No case, no trial, no proof, no verdict. There should be nothing else to discuss, really, and being angry about the "apology" comment is beyond trivial at this point.
Not sure what to do with all this rambling, but I guess you're right: Al Gore would have been the first rich, powerful, political figure with a struggling marriage to have had a fling of some sort. No one believed it about John Edwards either, did they? Wasn't that the National Enquirer, too?
I'm not angry about it; I'm pointing up the ludicrousness of it. We all convict who we want without a trial. I happened to do it to a guy who gets sympathy on this board. End of story, really. I'll try not to curtail his civil rights next time I see Al Gore.
Except you did it when all the evidence - as presented by the DA in the memo - is that the woman was a liar. And no one evidence actually supports your side. So I guess, yes, if you could care less about evidence or being right, then yes, we can all convict who we want for whatever. As FB posted earlier, you might be a rapist. I have no evidence of that, but I guess that doesn't matter at all. It's funny how much you'll distort logic to demonize Gore while simultaneously distorting logic to defend Breitbart because you don't like to demonize people.
I'm not demonizing Gore as much as I'm not replacing his sainthood as most of you seem wont to do. Failing a lie detector test does not make her a liar; those tests are notoriously unreliable to the point of being in-admissable in court I do believe. This thing was dead months ago and was only brought back up due to some internal procedural matter within the Portland DA's office. Maybe she gave up the uphill battle of fighting Al Gore when it was dismissed the first time and so won't cooperate? Who knows? Does anyone know? We assume different things. Do you really believe that there is absolutely nothing to this story? Did you believe that about Clinton a decade ago and Edwards a couple of years ago? I'll have to go investigate those other allegations made about Gore. Have those been cast aside?
That was one of eight points the DA brought up. The most damning are the first two, where she admitted actions inconsistent with rape, and other witnesses challenged her story. Based on the "dream about redheads" quote, my guess would be that something unethical but consensual happened. On a side note, if you go back to the first John Edwards thread, my first reaction there was that it was probably true. But the circumstances were different - you had actual evidence of it. the NE had followed him around, had actual facts behind them, etc.
I wasn't aware that the charges were rape; the charges are described as sexual assault not rape. I don't see Molly as some virginal figure here and she did say that the hotel was her gravy train. I could see her making a "safe" phone call to please the client and keep the hotel's business. What I remember reading was the one hotel desk clerk doesn't remember her being very upset. I don't see that as an overwhelming inconsistency. I think that anyone who is upset would rank themselves higher on the upset scale than just about anyone observing them would. I don't know that we've ever seen the Edwards' photograph. We heard about it because the NE alleged to have it. At any rate, I don't remember seeing it. Look I gotta admit I'm having fun at the expense of Al Gore and all his apologists. I don't think he is a rapist. I think he's a horny man in a dwindling marriage. This little piece hits on the three escapades: 2006 in Portland, 2007 in Beverly Hill and 2009 in Tokyo: http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/absolutely-fabulous/al-gore-scandal-shocking-details-emerge/ does seem to establish a pattern that this guy may have become sexually reckless and unfaithful to his wife. I read somewhere that his legal time intimidated the Portland paper out of publishing a story about the "alleged" event weeks after it first happened by referencing his stellar reputation as a family man's family man. In the aftermath, two other alleged incidents happened and the Gores filed for divorce. So far the biggest lie is the letter than Gore's legal team drew up!!
