Let's be honest, this Weinstein fella hasn't even seen his day in court and you guys already branded him a rapist, and will continue to do so even if the upcoming cases are dropped.
Well in this case -- someone who had all the allegations against him either dis-proven in court or the court cases against them dropped should be considered totally exonerated, eh? Considering that Weinstein now has over 20 women making claims, it will be interesting how it ends up in civil/criminal court. I don't expect the claims against Weinstein to be dis-proven or dropped in court unlike the situation with Donald Trump. Don't get me wrong - I believe that Trump has been verbally/physically inappropriate with women over the past decades. However the assertions that he raped a 13 year old have been thoroughly dis-proven and it is absurd for people like exGOPer to continue to push this nonsense.
Weinstein case : he could win IF he actually showed that each of the women actually slept for a jigg with other people. If his lawyers can prove that these women were actually in a type of "prostitution" activities - where money was exchanged via jiggs and other stuff, the guy could actually walk free. Where he could have problems, is if one of his victim never slept before for a jigg, and her refusal of his sex offers, lead to her being demonized, harassed and all type of difficulties. For this/these woman(en), this is her/their chance to strike a montainous settlement.
There are more than 20 women making claims against Trump as well http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/49779...umps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Disprove or Dropped isn't the same thing - you know that considering you bring up Bill Clinton again and again while the judge directly said that Clinton didn't commit sexual assault.
In regards to a 13 year old was raped assertions, both the cases were dropped and allegations dis-proven. You (and others) making this assertion over & over again only serves to make you look like a fool and detracts from your other claims about Trump.
When were the allegations disproven? Source? I am repeating what the WITNESS to the rape said, if you have a source where the witness retracted her claims, do let me know.
That's not what you said. You said Trump was a "self-admitted" child rapist. That's not what you said. You said Trump was a "self-admitted" child rapist. That's not what you said. You said Trump was the source of the fact. Let me get this straight. Because you said he said ("self admitted") he is a child rapist, i'm supposed to start attacking him by any means necessary? I'm pointing out the fact that you are saying Trump is a "self-admitted" child rapist. Are you still saying that?