Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

The closest thing I've seen to somebody trying to put the blame on her was Ragu's comment on the other thread, and even that is a reach in interpretation on my part.

 

You can't go around touching people, especially on parts of their body that are "private," without permission. It's the highest form of trespassing. We charge people for climbing over the wrong fence all the time.

 

Honestly, @Dick Whitman, are you off work this week? How are you posting so much?

 

Totally agreed. That doesn't necessarily make Solo's accusation against Blatter "sexual assault," based on the limited information (and, not for nothing, the morass of state sex crime laws).

I don't want to belabor too much longer although, indeed, I'm the one who brought it up. We'll have to agree to disagree. But it's interesting that the AP changed the story after it went out. The AP is cautious. I'm cautious. You and I are just wired differently when it comes to that.

 

I'm making my way through reading some grueling deposition testimony. For an undiagnosed ADHDer like yours truly, that requires a lot of breaks. The brief is due next Wednesday. Although I keep office hours, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm billing all during office hours, if that makes sense. I wish I could just bear down for 10 hours straight on real estate litigation. I do.

In the early morning I sometimes post between my workout sets, in the event I'm ever in a situation where I'm presented with the opportunity to kick your ass.

 

He is floating the idea that she might be wrong/crazy/lying. The purest definition of gaslighting.

 

He isn't, though. He is saying he remembers it differently.

You're always going on and on and on about how eyewitnesses are faulty because memories can be earnestly and honestly different among people who were at the same event. That could easily be the case here.

 

Eyewitness and victim are not interchangeable

 

The non-denial denial, coupled with the non-apology apology, is a pretty big tell.

 

Ah. So now we're back where @Dick Whitman took us: that the woman is to be believed lock, stock and barrel.

He isn't saying she was wrong. He's saying he remembers it differently. He could actually believe there was some sort of implied consent -- Tweeden's own article says the show was filled with "sexual innuendo" and no doubt that was the pervasive atmosphere backstage too. He could be a cretin for believing this, but he could actually believe it. He never says she's wrong or lying. He says he remembers it differently. It's a basic concept.

 

Maybe not enough to convict him at trial, but it's surely enough to force him from the Senate, right?

Is his life going to me ruined if he's forced to resign?

 

I don't know, but I'll have an excuse not to read his book that my mom just sent me.